Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 October 26

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< October 25 October 27 >

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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 03:26, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Papua New Guinea–Spain relations

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

Whilst this looks like a sourced article, most of it is from the Spanish Ministry of Foreign Affairs and there is in fact very little interaction between these 2 countries. No agreements, state visits, migration or significant trade. The section on cooperation is about European Union-PNG relations not Spain-PNG relations. LibStar (talk) 23:56, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep. I am withdrawing this; Find bruce's sources and some additional research of my own have convinced me that this is a reasonable list. (non-admin closure) AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 13:46, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of Recorders of Penang, Singapore and Malacca

List of Recorders of Penang, Singapore and Malacca (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There may be a rationale for delimiting this list to cover all and only recorders of Penang, Malacca, and Singapore from 1808 to 1867, but I don't see it. All of these places were part of the Straits Settlements, but there were other colonies in the Straits Settlements. And 1808 doesn't seem to be a significant date in the history of any of these places, unless the position of recorder was inaugurated then (a fact not alluded to in the article). This says that a British colonial court opened in Penang on 31 May 1808, presided over by a recorder, but this says that a unified court for Penang, Malacca, and Singapore didn't exist until 27 November 1826, pursuant to the Second Charter of Justice (an article that now goes on my list to create). All in all, I'm quite confused and think this list fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NLIST. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 23:51, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 03:27, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sophia Peer

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

WP:BLP of a filmmaker, not reliably sourced as passing WP:CREATIVE. The notability claim on offer here is that her work exists, and the referencing is almost entirely to primary sources (her own self-published website about herself, her "staff" profiles on the self-published websites of organizations she's directly affiliated with, etc.) that are not support for notability at all -- out of 11 footnotes, the only one that goes to a real piece of third party coverage in a real WP:GNG-worthy media outlet is paywalled, so it's impossible for me to determine how much it actually says about her for the purposes of helping to contribute GNG points (all I can determine is that her name doesn't appear before the "pay to read" lock at all.) But regardless of whether it says very much about her or not, it still takes a lot more than just one GNG-worthy source to pass GNG. Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to be referenced considerably better than this. Bearcat (talk) 17:45, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:45, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:45, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:14, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:41, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:51, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • information Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing.
Logs: 2021-09 ✍️ create
--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 3 November 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. While delete votes outnumber keep votes by a little bit, the strength of arguments on both sides seems more or less equal, and I'm not quite seeing consensus to delete. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 05:35, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Alfa Indonesia DHC-4 crash

2016 Alfa Indonesia DHC-4 crash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Tragic but not notable accident. Cargo plane crashes are common. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:37, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:37, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:37, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:37, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:37, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think the references now show notability. I added a link to the interim investigation report into the crash and the recommendation from it. Oddly, no final report has been released yet. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:14, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The sources all date to within eight days of the accident except the last, showing the coverage wasn't WP:SUSTAINED. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:02, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't know whether the creator of THE article should have a say or not, but I myself would like this to be deleted. While it's tragic, it's not notable and there hasn't been any updates on the investigation itself. PaPa PaPaRoony (talk) 07:59, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom. Aircraft crashes in Papua are common. No update on the investigation and no significant coverage on the crash after 2016 Nyanardsan (talk) 00:18, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep enough sources here to meet WP:GNG, and its an article of reasonable quality that goes above a simple news report. NemesisAT (talk) 15:30, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We are not a news site, and there's no indication of any significant lasting effects or sustained coverage from this unfortunately fairly routine crash. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:59, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:17, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:50, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Conditional keep – Is Alfa Indonesia a certified air carrier? A fatality accident of a large commercial aircraft typically meets community consensus guidelines for a standalone article, even if it was a cargo flight. Carguychris (talk) 16:57, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. North America1000 00:25, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Colombia, Caracas

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

Fails WP:GNG. All this article does is confirm the embassy exists. Embassies are not inherently notable. The text "The Embassy is charged with..." is recycled in various embassy articles. LibStar (talk) 23:49, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't that be more likely to affect the potential to expand Colombia–Venezuela relations rather than this article, though? I rarely see the possibility in expanding articles about an embassy building from a permastub, and this is no exception. Richard3120 (talk) 14:31, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
agree with Richard. LibStar (talk) 22:56, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
While I understand the point and the concerns, I stand by my original position. Only as examples, in 2003 there was a bomb attack in Colombia's consulate in Caracas [es] (as well as Spain's embassy), and in the last years there has been an increasing number of Venezuelan congresspeople and politicians that have sought refuge in the embassies of Latin American countries, specifically Chile, Argentina and Mexico. There might be events that currently slip from my reach, but I hope it illustrate events that are more specific and that shouldn't be included in an article about bilateral relations as a whole. The description of its current image states that the building was built in the 1930s by dictator Juan Vicente Gómez and later given to the Colombian government, and while I only found circular references for this statement, it could be a good start to continue expanding the article. --NoonIcarus (talk) 21:13, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. as per above. Best Regards.---✨LazyManiik✨ 05:33, 28 October 2021 (UTC) Sockpuppet of blocked user Lazy Maniik. ✗plicit 14:04, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The subject has got good coverage in the news due to the complex relationship between Colombia and Venezuela over the past decades. That's why there are articles in BBC, AP, not only in the local newspapers. Dr.KBAHT (talk) 17:07, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as it has received enough coverage for notabilityJackattack1597 (talk) 21:32, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:50, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ryuchalo

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

High promotional BLP. Fails WP:BIO. Examined the first five refs, don't support a BLP. Notability tag on since June. scope_creepTalk 22:02, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:27, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:27, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Jumpytoo Talk 00:57, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:46, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:50, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bremer SV 0–12 FC Bayern Munich

Bremer SV 0–12 FC Bayern Munich (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:NEVENT/WP:GNG. Though an impressive scoreline, the game has not received anything more than routine coverage and is of no long-term significance. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 22:59, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What do you consider "routine coverage"? A simple google search brings backs hundreds of articles, many from reputable sources across both German and English language publications Bild, Kicker, Sport1, the BBC, Sky Sports, ESPN, and more. The match broke numerous records too, which are highlighted in the article. It has more notability and long-term significance than many articles of this nature that have not been scrutinized, i.e. Manchester United F.C. 8–2 Arsenal F.C. and Nottingham Forest F.C. 1–8 Manchester United F.C.. Rupert1904 (talk) 07:03, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Rupert1904: Your point about the Man Utd articles is immaterial as 'other stuff exists' is a very weak argument; I am making no comment as per whether the Man Utd matches are notable. All of the references provided (bar the two for the postponement) are match reports/routine sports articles that do not demonstrate any real notability, and I can't find any sources that do. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 08:20, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Manchester United F.C. 8–2 Arsenal F.C. and Nottingham Forest F.C. 1–8 Manchester United F.C. were matches between two Premier League teams, not a top division team and some nobodies. And the Forest one did break a record (though I'm still not sure it's notable enough anyway). Joseph2302 (talk) 09:09, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's a huge scoreline and is their second largest margin of victory in the club's professional history. I would say that's noteworthy and I would also say that the other win in 1997, a 16–1 defeat of DJK Waldberg should also have it's own article as well. Again I ask, why are these matches that I mentioned above any more notable? Is it just because they happened in an English speaking country? This match actually had records attached to it. If it's the second highest victory of all time, that's still a record. Rupert1904 (talk) 07:55, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The second biggest victory of all time isn't a record, by definition. In the case of the two matches you linked above, Nottingham Forest F.C. 1–8 Manchester United F.C. set a record for the biggest ever away win in the Premier League, which is a genuine record. Not sure about the other one. -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:13, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's not the biggest ever away win though.Rupert1904 (talk) 09:46, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It was at the time though. It set a new record. -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:48, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So should the first away win in the Premier League also have it's own article since it set a record at the time? Rupert1904 (talk) 09:50, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, was this the second biggest victory of all time in German professional football, or just Bayern's second biggest? As far as I can see we don't have stand-alone articles on other individual clubs' biggest ever wins (unless it set some other sort of record), let alone their second biggest....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:15, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails WP:NEVENT and WP:GNG, although wins of 10+ goals are rare that doesn't make them inherently notable. It might be better to include some of the information here at the parent article 2021–22 DFB-Pokal. There may be an argument to recreate the article in future should it become significant in the long term but right now is WP:TOOSOON so I would not be opposed to the article being moved to draft space similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Real Madrid 1–2 FC Sheriff Tiraspol. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 08:18, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete way WP:TOOSOON to be able to assert that this has sustained coverage, highly doubt it will. So doesn't pass WP:GNG. Despite all the current articles about it, I doubt people will remember it in a few weeks time. And it didn't actually break any records. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:07, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's fine if a majority of editors vote that this article doesn't meet the notability criteria but I would just ask that the same scrutiny be brought to the two articles I mentioned above and others. It seems every time Manchester United scores a handful of goals, there is clamor to create an article about it. The Nottingham Forest game is the second biggest away win of all time in the Premier League. If Bayern's second biggest win in their professional history (and the club's biggest away win of all time) is not a record then that's certainly not a record either. The ManU-Arsenal game just had a lot of goals. This match had more goals. So again it's fine if this doesn't pass notability, although I don't agree, but I would just ask that we be more discerning on match articles associated with UK clubs. Rupert1904 (talk) 09:44, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Forest-Man U game was the biggest away win at the time i.e. it actually set a new record. And it was a record for an entire league, not just one club -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:48, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As I said above, that's no more notable than the first ever away win in Premier league history by Norwich City over Arsenal in 1992. That too set a record at the time. Rupert1904 (talk) 09:54, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That other articles exist that do not meet WP:GNG is not a valid reason to keep an article.--dashiellx (talk) 11:50, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying to keep it because other articles exist. I am saying that if every editor agrees that this doesn't reach notability standards and thinks we should delete it, then we should. But we should also delete these other articles that I have referenced. I want the same level of scrutiny to be added to every article. Rupert1904 (talk) 12:11, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Then nominate those articles for deletion as well. It's not on this nominator to check for other articles that fail WP:GNG. This discussion is about this article and this article only. --dashiellx (talk) 12:18, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. I'll nominate both articles. And I'm not saying it's on any one nominator to do it. I just want the whole community to do a better job of setting a standard for scrutinizing articles that don't meet a notability threshold. Rupert1904 (talk) 13:09, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Microwave Anarchist nom.--dashiellx (talk) 11:50, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - a fifth tier side vs a top tier side with a win which is not actually a new record breaking win doesn't merit notability. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 13:58, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If Bayern had won 12–0 against another Bundesliga team, it might be worth an article. This was a lower league side being hopelessly outclassed in a match of no real importance and, in the circumstances, the article fails GNG. No Great Shaker (talk) 15:57, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Dr Salvus 16:57, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per arguments above. Big scoring does not mean notable. GiantSnowman 18:48, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks all for feedback. Let's delete. Rupert1904 (talk) 19:15, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this article is an example of WP:RECENTISM. Significant coverage other than normal is not there. Paul Vaurie (talk) 22:55, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete-per nom.Best Regards.---✨LazyManiik✨ 05:37, 28 October 2021 (UTC) Sockpuppet of blocked user Lazy Maniik. ✗plicit 14:04, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draft I completely disagree on a straight up delete without time to analyse how much this match has on Bremer, analyse reports like [4], there is cause, effect and aftermath. Govvy (talk) 12:33, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - irrelevant match. a first division team beating a super lower division team is meaningless. it was 12-0 sure, but if they didnt win 12-0 with their first team playing youd question how good bayren actually are lol.Muur (talk) 20:04, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Bergvliet. ✗plicit 23:53, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bergvliet Primary School

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

Unsourced since 2007; appears to be a run-of-the-mill elementary school. Google search provides their own website and directories (LinkedIn profiles of teachers) but no substantial coverage to meet GNG. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 22:19, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was draftify to Draft:Terror on the Prairie. Consensus is to delete, but since the film might become more notable in the future, I'll draftify the article to keep it accessible. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 05:41, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Terror on the Prairie

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

Subject does not pass WP:GNG or Wikipedia:Notability (films). Article violates WP:NFF, WP:NOTNEWS, and WP:CRYSTALBALL, and WP:FFEXCEPTIONS doesn't give this particular film a valid exception. There is no broad or enduring coverage of this 'to-be-made for private subscription release' film. Most of the citations are primary source or based on each other. Merge the content into Daily Wire or Gina Carano until such time as the film becomes notable or, if still in production, when the production becomes notable. Of the six current citations: The two Daily Wire citations are primary source; Movieweb and Yahoo got their info from Deadline; one Deadline article covers the announcement, but doesn't cover the production (which is required per NFF); and the other Deadline article is extra fluff about another actor. So that leaves only ONE citation that is independent and could be said to contribute towards notability. That just isn't enough to pass GNG. Per WP:NFF, "Additionally, films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines." 'Fired actress bucks SAG union to make film in Montana because she doesn't believe in mandatory Covid vaccines' is neither extraordinary nor notable. Delete the article until such time as it passes notability standards. Platonk (talk) 06:48, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Platonk (talk) 06:48, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify: I saw that this page was up and in a pretty sorry state, so I took some preliminary measures to fix it up at face value. What I propose is that this returns to a draft state, so that Dswitz10734 has the opportunity to fix the article up properly. BOTTO (T•C) 16:20, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with Draftifying an article is that someone else will likely resubmit to RfC before the film is released and becomes notable, and some editor will approve it. Then we'll be right back here again. Platonk (talk) 19:15, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's the inherent take on practically every draftified page. If it is prematurely put in the main space again, it can be reverted. I agree that it's not deserving of being in the main space yet and Dsitz10734 should have been patient and left this page incubating, but there's potential that it will be notable down the line. BOTTO (T•C) 13:29, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Dswitz10734: The article is veering into the opinion piece territory - especially with new the Gabriel-Kane Day-Lewis section. It just needs to deliver on the facts, without discussing why it could be perceived as ironic or interesting. BOTTO (T•C) 20:05, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Botto What changes to do you suggest? Dswitz10734 (talk) 16:42, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Dswitz10734: I would recommend removing that entire Gabriel-Kane Day-Lewis subsection, as it's really just trivia and adds nothing substantive to the article. If anything, Gabriel-Kane's participation is notable because it's his first solid acting role, as the son of Daniel Day-Lewis. Also, that second paragraph in the lead? That would be terrific to put in the Production section down below. Terms like "going against the grain" and "counter to Hollywood standards" should be vetted for being more neutral. The fact that it is non-union is probably the most impartial element of this all. BOTTO (T•C) 21:28, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep First, thank you for notifying me for this article's consideration for deletion. Yahoo and Deadline are notable sources. I'm wondering which sources are deemed officially "notable" here on Wikipedia? Because both of these sites are widely recognized. Also, as for the Crystal Ball policy, release dates from a project's studio are all over Wikipedia. If the studio discloses a release date, then usually that makes it onto a project's Wikipedia page- cited, of course. Dswitz10734 (talk) 15:24, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most important of all, WP:NFF clearly states that unless the production itself (as in the filming stage, see Filmmaking#Production) is notable, then the film shouldn't have a Wikipedia article until it is (a) released, and (b) becomes notable. There has been a news release that filming started very recently. There is nothing notable about the production at this stage.
  • As for Yahoo, the problem isn't that Yahoo is or isn't notable. In this instance their article content comes from two Deadline articles and is just churnalism. If you're going to 'count' how many agencies report on a movie, then it should be mostly independently-generated (aka fresh) reporting, not recycled from some other online source which has already been 'counted'.
  • Just because the people who are making this movie run their own media 'empire' and know how to push information out through their cohort channels, doesn't making the idea of this movie notable. Notable means of interest to multiple independent sources. At this stage, we have one independent source, Deadline. But even if we had multiple independent sources, that wouldn't override the parameters of NFF.
  • It doesn't matter that there are other "upcoming" films "all over Wikipedia". They may have notable production stages, or maybe they are also in violation of NFF and need to be removed until those films are released and become notable. There is no need to suggest we break a Wikipedia guideline because others have done so.
  • Perhaps you should read Wikipedia:Planned films#NFF exceptions. Platonk (talk) 16:15, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete based on a first reading of the article. An article should speak for itself as to why it is notable, and this article does not indicate significant coverage of the production. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:13, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It’s good enough for a future film to have a reliable source stating that principle photography has commenced, the point of this being that the base standard of the WP:GNG is temporarily lessened. In this case, that article does not include such a reliable source, the youtube source is not good enough, not a reliable source. If no such source appears, then draftify. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:14, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@SmokeyJoe Here's one, from the distributing studio: www.dailywire.com/news/daily-wire-releases-details-on-new-gina-carano-project-terror-on-the-prairie — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎ Dswitz10734 (talk • contribs) 9:34, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
WP:RSP lists The Daily Wire as an unreliable source. Can you do better? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:10, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@SmokeyJoe Maybe this one? Deadline is listed as reliable (WP:RSPDEADLINE). deadline.com/2021/10/gina-carano-mandalorian-daily-wire-western-terror-on-prairie-mma-cowboy-cerrone-1234854785/ Dswitz10734 (talk) 20:33, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that’s a good source for commencement of filming. Put that source in, and get the YouTube source out. Strip back anything not coming for a reliable independent source.
  • Keep. There is coverage in reliable sources (apparently it’s an “under-the-radar western”), and principle photography has commenced, so it is good for mainspace. It qualifies at least for WP:STUB. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:55, 20 October 2021 (UTC) changed to “merge and redirect”, below. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:23, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or draftify per WP:TOOSOON. Fails WP:NFF and WP:CRYSTAL.4meter4 (talk) 01:00, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    User:4meter4, have you noted the contention in different readings of NFF?
    But more specifically, what fact/sentence whatever on the page fails WP:CRYSTAL. I don’t think anything does. Everything is sourced and reported in past tense, including the line “ The Daily Wire's Jeremy Boreing announced that the film would premiere in spring 2022.” This announcement is NOT NOTCRYSTALBALL. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:39, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I edited the article; details on its talk page. The result, with regards to notability or not, is that there are only two articles which could count towards notability: The Deadline article and the Newsweek article, just three days apart. The two Daily Wire citations don't count towards notability as they are primary sources, and the second Deadline article (about Gabriel) is just a brief announcement about him; an addendum to the other article just three days before. Platonk (talk) 06:38, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Robert and Platonk. Fails GNG if it is for subscription members only and the sourcing is inadequate – the Daily Wire is unreliable. No Great Shaker (talk) 11:57, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The “first” release promised to subscribers is unimportant and cut. DailyWire sourcing cut, including material sourced from it, except for naming three of the cast which is uncontenious. Passing NFF is established by the RS Deadline WP:RSPDEADLINE. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:39, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@SmokeyJoe: By your edit removing the information that the film will be released for Daily Wire subscribers only (which is mentioned in every source), then you leave the Wikipedia reader with the impression that this film will be placed in movie theaters. I have read no such plan in any of the many citations for this article that I've read in the last two weeks. I have, however seen: The plan is to first release the film exclusively to DailyWire.com members in spring 2022. The Hurt Locker outfit Voltage Pictures is handling international sales, (Deadline); and The movie is set to release first exclusively through streaming to DailyWire.com members in spring 2022 with international sales going through distributor Voltage Pictures. (Newsweek). Those two statements (which were based on interviews with Carano and Borering), lead me to believe it will go from subscriber-streaming to DVD sales. Do you have a source that says it will go to general release to theaters (not a citation for the article, just one to settle this ambiguity)? Platonk (talk) 23:55, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
User:Platonk, note the word “first”. To me it implies a wider release to follow, and a few days later would be my guess. If you are right, if this is a straight to subscribers and that’s it, only, release, then that changes the picture for me. Yes, I assumed it was intended to go to general release in theatres. I do not believe that the permissive reading of NFF was intended for straight to VHS release, indeed I am sure it was not. I had not thought to seek verification that general release to theatres was intended. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:29, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The last film Daily Wire released/distributed was also a subscriber-only film, Run Hide Fight, which earned a paltry $20K in revenue (international). Platonk (talk) 04:39, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Does Voltage Pictures release to theatres? SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:29, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they do. So if they're only contracted for 'international sales', then I don't see Daily Wire as planning a release to domestic/USA cinemas. Platonk (talk) 04:39, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consensus appears to be stuck on whether to delete or draftify in response to the WP:CRYSTAL claims. More input from others is recommended.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:18, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep An announcement from the producing studio about beginning production isn't WP:CrystalBall. As for notability, this film has coverage from major media outlets such as Deadline. Dswitz10734 (talk) 14:10, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Dswitz10734 already voted and gave input. BOTTO (T•C) 22:06, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Botto It was relisted so I voted again because of relist.
@Dswitz10734: That's not what re-listing entails. It simply means that it's been brought to the forefront again, so it can garner further input. All the previous votes are accounted for, though it's not about quantity, so much as the quality of the arguments and general consensus. BOTTO (T•C) 19:02, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Mind you, I'm not voting to delete, by the way. It's just that it could confuse the reviewer(s). BOTTO (T•C) 05:41, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

— Duplicate vote: Dswitz10734 (talk • contribs) has already cast a vote above. Platonk (talk) 21:29, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. As per above. Best Regards.---✨LazyManiik✨ 05:40, 28 October 2021 (UTC) Sockpuppet of blocked user Lazy Maniik. ✗plicit 14:03, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Enough coverage about the film is mixed in with the rest to count as significant coverage in reliable sources. [5] [6] Dream Focus 22:12, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge into The Daily Wire. -- Valjean (talk) 23:15, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect into The Daily Wire#Films in production. There is more than enough verifiable information for coverage, and no good reason to delete material or contributions from the available page history. Retracting “meets NFF” on the basis that this is not a film for general cinematic release, but is better considered a product of The Daily Wire for their subscribers. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:21, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Enos733 (talk) 15:27, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Amor Vittone

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

BLP without real references Rathfelder (talk) 21:31, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Commentary

  1. The lady is a living person, an active and well-known singer/dancer in South Africa.
  2. Citations for notability are included in the article.
  3. The article is not a stub.
  4. Please do not delete, it is one of the very few translated from Afrikaans!

Regards, Aliwal2012 (talk) 21:40, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Articles about living people need to have actual references. Rathfelder (talk) 18:53, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I'd suggest there is no real debate about her notability. She is a TV presenter and gold-disc recording artist, and the subject of a biography published by a Penguin Books/Random House imprint. The nominator is quite right to point out that this article desperately needs additional citations - Google shows there's no shortage of material available online to assert her notability. Humansdorpie (talk) 19:57, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - Well known celebrity who easily passes WP:GNG in her own right, and also covered extensively because of her former marriage. We need more articles about South African celebrities, not less. Park3r (talk) 09:33, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Relationship with Joost van der Westhuizen covered extensively in a 225 page biography (a book which itself generated coverage). Also has recent coverage typical of a notable celebrity in a few English articles [7] [8]. Possibly more coverage in Afrikaans. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:33, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep per nominator withdrawal and no recommendations for delete (WP:CSK). While there is a suggestion of a move to List of mayors of Sandwich, that article already redirects to this one, as there is no indication of notability issues of either, discussion can proceed elsewhere regarding most appropriate title. (non-admin closure) Goldsztajn (talk) 21:01, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mayor of Sandwich

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

Completely unreliable The Banner talk 21:18, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy close as keep, as nominator Now that the unreliable content is removed, there is no need to maintain this nomination. The Banner talk 12:34, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:53, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Brown Lindiwe Mkhize

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

BLP without any working references, and not obviously notable. Rathfelder (talk) 20:57, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. ✗plicit 03:34, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Metaswitch

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

Fails WP:NCORP. None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability as they are all based on standard business listings, primary sources or company-produced PR. HighKing++ 15:31, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. HighKing++ 15:31, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. HighKing++ 15:31, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Nom. seems to indicate looking at article only and no indication of BEFORE search being conducted. VOIP work is not sexy but business critical area and one of the major players, albeit with a patient infringement issue at one point. Foray in 5G seems significant enough for Microsoft to become involved. Rediect to Microsoft where it would be lost is not helpful; brand appears well known. 239K hit count is large and while might come down on close inspection due to duplicates makes for a high ratio of product announcements in that. Thankyou. 15:53, 10 October 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djm-leighpark (talk • contribs)
  • Delete - if it fails the prescribed notability test. GoodDay (talk) 15:56, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect (as an alternative to deletion) would be logical (as a plausible search term, and as it can be verified that this was indeed acquired by Microsoft). 239K ghits (I get 256k, fwiw) is not either of A) that much; or B) a good argument. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:25, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 21:28, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for reason cited above. The acquisition by Microsoft is verified, and this is an important part of the business of 5G. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:23, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:17, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Lets give this one last try to try and find a consensus
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle (talk • contribs) 20:41, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:56, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Karan Sonavale

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

PROD removed. Cricketer has not played for the Oman national cricket team or for Mumbai (as claimed in the article). Completely fails the notability guidelines of WP:NCRIC. StickyWicket (talk) 20:21, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:56, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Assisi Convent School (Noida)

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

A non-notable school in India with not a single reference coming outside of the school's website, a site that mentions the school in passing, or a promotional article. Nothing really about the notability of the school. This article fails both WP:GNG and WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:50, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:21, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Columbus Saints Drum and Bugle Corps

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

No evidence of notability outside the DCI/DCA universe, no evidence of 1st, 2nd or 3rd place in national competition. Contested PROD. Acroterion (talk) 16:40, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Acroterion (talk) 16:40, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Acroterion (talk) 16:40, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:47, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eternal Shadow Talk 19:49, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep additional sources have been added since the deletion nomination, I feel the article now meets WP:GNG. NemesisAT (talk) 16:55, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdrawn. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 02:15, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kelli Stavast

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

Renominating this non-notable motorsports pit reporter after the last AfD was closed with no prejudice as to speedy renom. There is no WP:SIGCOV in any reliable/independent sources, as pointed out in this source assessment table made by User:Beccaynr in the last AfD below:

Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
NASCAR Pit Reporter Kelli Stavast Shares Sunset Proposal Story, “Timeless” Ring Details (The Knot, 2016) ~ Based primarily on statements of the subject, WP:SECONDARY context introduces the subject and commentary is limited to anticipation of the wedding. No Terms of use includes "THE SERVICES ARE PROVIDED FOR ENTERTAINMENT, EDUCATIONAL, AND PROMOTIONAL PURPOSES ONLY." This is not a journalistic or academic source. ~ Based primarily on statements of the subject, WP:SECONDARY context introduces the subject and commentary is limited to anticipation of the wedding. ✘ No
Marty Snider, Kelli Stavast added to NBC's NASCAR on-air team (NBCSports, 2014) No This is a press release from the employer of the subject Yes ~ 2 sentences about her past career in addition to the announcement. ✘ No
The Life of a Racing Pit Reporter: Kelli Stavast (Frontstretch, 2019) Yes A mix of interview and WP:SECONDARY context Yes About Us section of the website indicates a news structure exists. ~ A mix of interview and WP:SECONDARY context, with commentary that appears related to pit reporting generally, not the subject. ~ Partial
Kelli Stavast ’02 Takes on Olympic Assignment for NBC (Chapman University, 2018) No Alumni magazine interview with alumni Yes ~ Mostly based on quotes from the subject. ✘ 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}}.

As will likely be pointed out, this subject was in the news recently in regards to a recent forced "meme"; none of the sources covering that meme describe this subject in any detail; they at best pull information from the sources that already exist. As User:Beccaynr also said in the last AfD,"Wikipedia is not a newspaper and not a tabloid, particularly for a WP:MINORASPECT of a subject's career." Fails WP:JOURNALIST and WP:GNG. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 19:48, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a way for me to view the Altdriver link without purchasing a VPN subscription or finding a sketchy free proxy? They appear to block "international traffic" :(. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 00:46, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"The speedwaydigest.com source is labeled "NBC Sports PR" and appears to be a press release. Heavy.com recycles the Frontstretch source already in the Wikipedia article, adds a non-independent link and information from her employer, her Instagram, various references to past "Fuck Joe Biden" chants, and a link and information from her alumni magazine - this is churnalism, and the reliance on the same and similar sources that do not sufficiently support WP:BASIC as outlined above, similarly does not add further support for notability." - This was a reply to your !vote on the last AfD that I feel is worth bringing up. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 02:48, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
and Altdriver's About page states, "alt_driver features the most entertaining and shareable car content from social media and the web. We look at literally thousands of videos and choose only the best to share. Keep in touch with us all over the web and social media to get in on the action", followed by a list of social media links, and links to a contact page, Visitor Agreement, and Privacy Policy. The Visitor Agreement specifically disclaims accuracy, e.g. "We do not endorse or guarantee the accuracy of any posting or Materials, regardless of whether they come from a user, a celebrity or ?expert? guest, or from a member of our staff", so this does not appear to be a reliable source that can contribute to notability per Wikipedia guidelines. Beccaynr (talk) 02:57, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per the two sources identified by Editorofthewiki. Banana Republic (talk) 02:30, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This feverish (repeated) AfD effort is dead in the water, over a year late, and an absurd waste of time and effort, especially in light of recent media coverage, only bringing the subject substantial additional notoriety. - JGabbard (talk) 02:37, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per last rationale I had, that this is an average sports journalist's article with proper sourcing, outside the controversy I asked for protection on that she was merely parallel to and meant only to stop bringing attention from a crowd. As the discussion was quickly derailed away from the subject and towards other things not having to do with her, I ask that the focus of that AfD remain solely on the subject in this discussion, not anything else (and won't respond to those outside concerns; please don't ping me about them, as they'll be ignored). Nate • (chatter) 03:32, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There do not appear to be reliable sources about what her intent was - as discussed in the previous AfD, based on my review of sources, it appears that her intent in the recent event is a matter of gossip/speculation, and tends to be reported in a way that disparages her, and therefore does not appear suitable for inclusion per WP:BLP policy and similarly does not support her notability. Beccaynr (talk) 04:18, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That much I agree with, the sources for the event are lousy and on par for writers who don't actually follow the sport and only watched the clip after the fact (and in fact I put the blame more on a BTS director who didn't cut away or blank out the audio right away, leaving her in the wind). But going by the standards of how we measure the articles of sports journalists, she slides by on a weak keep per my past experience if that incident never happened. But I will admit my bias in my subject area (media/television) is a bit heavy towards inclusionism. Nate • (chatter) 04:39, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, for all reasons given by people in the first nomination. TuckerResearch (talk) 12:45, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as per above -- this article goes beyond typical stub type articles for sports journalists. This article was created prior to recent events, and effectively has not significantly changed since then. TiggerJay (talk) 18:10, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Ironically Kelli has historically greater page views compared to Brandon Brown prior to the newsworthy instance. TiggerJay (talk) 19:28, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Furthermore I seriously doubt the innocent claim this being simply about remove a non-notable broadcaster, but rather just a complete red herring regarding the greater topic of Let's Go Brandon. The other broadcasters linked to Kelli have not been subject to AfD by the nom, while having far less page views, Google Trends and references. TiggerJay (talk) 18:13, 28 October 2021 (UTC) (updated: 18:59, 29 October 2021 (UTC))[reply]
    False. I put up Dave Burns at the same time as Kelli, Marty Snider and Vince Welch. I also considered one for Massaro, but was able to find additional references during my WP:BEFORE check. [10] GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 20:09, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair point -- unable to see what isn't there. TiggerJay (talk) 19:00, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Neutral I have updated the source assessment table below to include sources referenced in this discussion and added to the article since the source assessment table had been developed previously, and there still does not appear to be sufficient support for the WP:BASIC or WP:JOURNALIST notability criteria. Beccaynr (talk) 22:50, 27 October 2021 (UTC) - table updated Beccaynr (talk) 23:47, 27 October 2021 (UTC) - update !vote Beccaynr (talk) 23:53, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
NASCAR Pit Reporter Kelli Stavast Shares Sunset Proposal Story, “Timeless” Ring Details (The Knot, 2016) ~ Based primarily on statements of the subject, WP:SECONDARY context introduces the subject and commentary is limited to anticipation of the wedding. No Terms of use includes "THE SERVICES ARE PROVIDED FOR ENTERTAINMENT, EDUCATIONAL, AND PROMOTIONAL PURPOSES ONLY." This is not a journalistic or academic source. ~ Based primarily on statements of the subject, WP:SECONDARY context introduces the subject and commentary is limited to anticipation of the wedding. ✘ No
Marty Snider, Kelli Stavast added to NBC's NASCAR on-air team (NBCSports, 2014) No This is a press release from the employer of the subject Yes ~ 2 sentences about her past career in addition to the announcement. ✘ No
The Life of a Racing Pit Reporter: Kelli Stavast (Frontstretch, 2019) Yes A mix of interview and WP:SECONDARY context Yes About Us section of the website indicates a news structure exists. ~ A mix of interview and WP:SECONDARY context, with commentary that appears related to pit reporting generally, not the subject. ~ Partial
Kelli Stavast ’02 Takes on Olympic Assignment for NBC (Chapman University, 2018) No Alumni magazine interview with alumni Yes ~ Mostly based on quotes from the subject. ✘ No
Kelli Stavast: NBC Reporter Behind Let’s Go Brandon Meme (Heavy.com, 2021) No This article recycles the Frontstretch source already in the Wikipedia article, adds a non-independent link and information from her employer, her Instagram, various references to past "Fuck Joe Biden" chants, and a link and information from her alumni magazine - this is churnalism. No WP:RSP "When Heavy.com cites another source for their own article, it is preferable to read and cite the original source instead." No ✘ No
Needed: Less Tara, Johnny, more Scott (Chicago Tribune, 2018) Yes Yes ~ In an article that reviews "seven things about NBC’s Winter Olympics coverage", there are three sentences about her interview of Madison Olsen. ~ Partial
Medal Stand: NBC's Stavast Goes For Cheap Emotions In Interview (Sports Business Journal, 2018) No Marked "sponsored content" at the bottom of the post, and otherwise promoting Hershey's and Red Stripe. No ~ Two sentences awarding Stavast "tin" while Hershey's is awarded "gold" and Red Stripe gets a "silver". ✘ No
Hamilton: Pit reporter Stavast has one crazy office (Winston Salem-Journal, 2015) Yes Yes Yes Includes quotes from Stavast, but also in-depth coverage of her career and biography. ✔ Yes
Stavast: What to Know About the NASCAR Pit Reporter (Alt driver, 2021) Yes No The site's Visitor Agreement specifically disclaims accuracy, e.g. "We do not endorse or guarantee the accuracy of any posting or Materials, regardless of whether they come from a user, a celebrity or ?expert? guest, or from a member of our staff", and the site's description on its About page states, "alt_driver features the most entertaining and shareable car content from social media and the web. We look at literally thousands of videos and choose only the best to share." Yes Career, education, and biographical information ✘ 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}}.
  • Keep Same guy nominating the same article a day after the previous nomination ended in no consensus, is just ridiculous! Why not just keep it going another week over there if you thought it'd matter? Wasn't closed by an administrator either. Anyway, the person was notable before this Lets Go Brandon thing, the article created by someone who didn't mention that when they made it. The sources found at [11] and [12] prove she meets the general notability guidelines. Dream Focus 01:06, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above.Best Regards.---✨LazyManiik✨ 08:09, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw for now - Revisit after this meme dies down so people quit thinking I'm some biased partisan. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 22:24, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    cc: 力. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 22:24, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep appears to be notable even excluding the recent event. Elli (talk | contribs) 23:31, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. North America1000 00:33, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

KaiserAir

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

Primary source. No notability. Doesn't meet with WP:GNG and WP:Notability (organizations). ➤ Tajwar – thesupermaN!【Click to Discuss】 16:09, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ➤ Tajwar – thesupermaN!【Click to Discuss】 16:09, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Notification of the existence of this AfD has been made at WikiProject Aviation and WikiProject Aircraft, within whose scope this article falls. - Ahunt (talk) 17:58, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:14, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:14, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:14, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Kaiserair Receives FAA Certification". The Weekly of Business Aviation. Vol. 74, no. 14. 2002-04-01. p. 157.
  • "KaiserAir; News of promotions, appointments and honors". Business and Commercial Aviation. Vol. 93, no. 6. McGraw Hill. 2003-12-01. p. 105.
  • David Rimmer (2001-04-01). "KaiserAir at Oakland International Airport". Business and Commercial Aviation. Vol. 88, no. 4. McGraw Hill. p. 33.
  • James E. Swickard (2003-01-01). "KaiserAir opened a NiCad battery service shop". Business and Commercial Aviation. Vol. 92, no. 1. McGraw Hill. p. 30.
  • "Otto Wright Named Manager, Oakland FBO, KaiserAir". Marketing Weekly News. 2011-05-14. p. 232.
  • "Kaiserair Won Approval To Install TAWS On Gulfstream Aircraft". The Weekly of Business Aviation. Vol. 74, no. 12. 2002-03-18. p. 134.
  • Edward H. Phillips (2001-02-26). "The FAA Has Authorized Kaiserair Inc to install the Universal Technical Standard Order (TSO) Terrain Avoidance and Warning System". Aviation week & space technology. Vol. 154, no. 9. p. 69.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any thoughts on 4meter4's sources?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:31, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - references added by 4meter4 mean that GNG is now met. Mjroots (talk) 10:10, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Questions:
    1. I'm seeing a bunch of references to Business and Commercial Aviation in 4meter4's sources. Is this a trade magazine?
    2. The Weekly of Business Aviation is a paywalled source. Is this a trade magazine?
    3. Is Aviation week & space technology a trade magazine?
    4. Is Marketing Weekly News a trade magazine?
    5. Is The Weekly of Business Aviation a trade magazine?
    6. With the exception of Marketing Weekly News, all of the sources listed by 4meter4 appear to be published by Aviation Week Network. Our article for the network describes it a a New-York based B2B publishing and event production company. Are the publications that it runs editorially independent from each other in a meaningful way, so as to actually constitute them being multiple sources for purposes of notability?
My initial reading is that they're all trade magazines, and that the Aviation Week Network has significant editorial overlap. However, I would like to make sure before commenting further. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 22:06, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Aviation Week & Space Technology is a perfectly good RS, and while Business and Commercial Aviation is a spin-off from Aviation Week, it is also a perfectly good RS. Coverage of the company appears to be ongoing over several years, but it isn't clear whether these articles - which appear to be news-type articles provide sufficient significant coverage to pass GNG.Nigel Ish (talk) 10:57, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, or if not that then selective merge to Henry J. Kaiser where it is currently not mentioned at all. SpinningSpark 12:42, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Changing !vote to full keep. There are enough sources to meet N:CORP. SpinningSpark 14:39, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm unable to access the above sources, but given the quantity provided I will assume that notability has been established. NemesisAT (talk) 15:11, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A lot of the Keep !votes above are relying on the references provided by 4meter4 above. Can 4meter4 please confirm that they read those references? I can see references in Proquest but I am unable to access the text. I may have fuller access later this week but it would be helpful if perhaps 4meter4 has located a different database or source. HighKing++ 19:56, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Other in-depth, independent, reliable sources include:
It would be interesting if we could pinpoint when it became a separate entity from Henry J. Kaiser's many-tentacled Kaiser Industries Corp. (Kaiser Shipyards, Kaiser Steel, Kaiser Permanente, Kaiser Motors, Kaiser Aluminum, Kaiser Jeep, Kaiser Broadcasting, Kaiser Aerospace, etc.) --Worldbruce (talk) 20:06, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Worldbruce: 1980, $150,000 [13]. Lot's of other interesting history in that source if you feel like working on the article. SpinningSpark 14:39, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Based on HighKing's comment. No harm in relisting.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - The9Man (Talk) 09:31, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I now have access to other databases and I'll check the sources listed above. Hope to have it done in the next day or so. HighKing++ 14:59, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I've been able to check most (but not all) of the references listed above. I couldn't find the 2nd the 3rd references (both from Business and Commercial Aviation) listed by 4meter4 above but I've found the rest. Worldbruce above says the references he listed are all "in-depth, independent, reliable sources" but I suspect by "independent" it only covers "corporate" independence. WP:ORGIND also required "Independent Content" which means company announcements and PR don't meet the criteria and those references all regurgitate company announcements. Everything I could check was entirely based on a company announcement or was a mention-in-passing with no in-depth information. The pdf posted by SpinningSpark, in my opinion, is the best of the lot but it appears that all of the in-depth information was provided by Guerra, it isn't clear that there's any Independent Content but even if this gets the benefit of the doubt, nothing else comes close. For those saying that there's plenty of sources to meet NCORP - finding sources that meet our criteria for inclusion does not rely on volume. There's just not multiple source that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing++ 11:20, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Finaly relist to allow discussion of 4meter4's sources and Highking's rebuttal.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 19:18, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: The nominator is a sockpuppet who was evading a block when he made this nomination. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:52, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. HighKing says he "suspects" the sources provided by WorldBruce lack "corporate independence" without actually having read the sources. That's a failure of AGF. Accessing US news sources from here is a complete nightmare because most US sites don't comply with European Union data protection law and refuse to serve the page for legal reasons. So I've only managed to check one by massaging TOR – that's the Independent article on KaiserAir at Livermore Municipal Airport. About half the article seems to be sourced from the Livermore Public Works Director (Lanphier is extensively quoted) and the other half is sourced to opponents of the KaiserAir extension. Only one paragraph covers what KaiserAir themselves say they are going to do. Clearly not a recycled press release, but a well balanced, in-depth article covering all points of view. SpinningSpark 13:03, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sometimes you'll get the articles on the wayback machine. The Independent article talks extensively about the application but *all* of the in-depth information about the company (see WP:CORPDEPTH) is sourced from the proposal submitted by the company - the paragraph starts with "In its proposal, KaiserAir, ....". Not a recycled press release, but from the point of view of the in-depth information, a recycled proposal. HighKing++ 19:02, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, so it's an in-depth discussion about the application of the company to expand operations at this airport. To me, that counts towards notability. It's not enough by itself, but that is not all we have available. SpinningSpark 23:50, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sure, if the proposal was the topic of the article, fine. You admit that it's "not enough by itself" and since NCORP doesn't allow you to combine references to reach notability and that each reference must meet all the criteria, then I am correct to point out that none of the references meet the criteria therefore the topic fails NCORP. HighKing++ 11:52, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • You say you are correct, my opinion differs. The encyclopaedic content on any company is largely the activities of that company. What NCORP does not say is that a source must cover every aspect of a company to count towards notability. Your claim that I am trying to combine sources to establish notability is a strawman argument. I am not, it was simply a recognition that more than one source is required. In any case, my analysis of this source was only aimed at countering your assertion that all the sources lacked corporate indepence, not that this was the only, or main, source of notability. SpinningSpark 14:01, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • It is nonsense to suggest that comments by locals and other interested parties about a rise in pollution at an airport as a result of a proposal to relocate an airline there would count towards notability. What NCORP *does* say about the criteria for establishing notability is that it must include in-depth information *about the company* and this article (and none of the articles you've posted referenced) does that in a way which also includes "Independent Content". Either you've posted a link to referenced an article which relies entirely on information provided by the company or an exec *or* you've posted referenced a link which says nothing in-depth about the company. You're welcome to a different opinion on what the guidelines should or should not include or allow but AfD isn't the place to expand NCORP. HighKing++ 17:01, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
              • Excuse me, I haven't posted any of the sources under discussion, so accusing me of posting deficient sources is an unwarranted calumny. In fact I have only posted one source in this discussion, and that was to answer a question by Worldbruce on the date the company separated from the Kaiser organisation. It was not to support notability (although you commented yourself that it was the best source so far). SpinningSpark 17:23, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - In my opinion, this article has improvement opportunities. I found multiple recent sources on KaiserAir:
  1. Pleasanton Weekly
  2. Pleasanton Weekly
  3. Pleasanton Weekly
  4. Pleasanton Weekly
  5. Pleasanton Weekly
  6. The Independent
  7. The Independent
  8. The Mercury News
  9. The Press Democrat — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mommmyy (talk • contribs) 14:14, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • None of those sources meet the criteria for establishing notability. Doesn't matter the number of "hits" you find on Google, we need references that meet NCORP criteria. Also, the Pleasanton Weekly is not a national paper, it is a local paper with a small weekly circulation. Leaving that aside:
  1. Pleasanton Weekly discusses the topic company's proposal to move their HQ but it has no in-depth information on the company, fails CORPDEPTH
  1. Pleasanton Weekly discusses concerns relating to pollution and noise but also has no in-depth information on the company, fails CORPDEPTH
  2. Pleasanton Weekly provides an update about the proposal, again no in-depth information on the company, fails CORPDEPTH
  3. Pleasanton Weekly discusses the plan and proposal to relocate in detail. Again, lots of detail on the proposal, no in-depth information on the company, fails CORPDEPTH
  4. Pleasanton Weekly discusses the council's decision to review a noise report connected with the relocation proposal. Lots of detail on local objections, no in-depth information on the company, fails CORPDEPTH
  5. The Independent is 5 sentences long and the last 3 sentences are details for an upcoming zoom call and dial-in information. Fails CORPDEPTH
  6. The Independent discusses the proposal. I dealt with this reference above but it fails WP:ORGIND because the detailed information originated from a proposal submitted by the topic company and none of the rest of the information is directly related to details/information that can assist in establishing notability
  7. The Mercury News article discusses the proposal in detail including fears and objections but doesn't provide any in-depth information on the company, fails CORPDEPTH
  8. The Press Democrat article refers to a jobfair being held in a hangar owned by the topic company. It is a single mention-in-passing. Not sure the thinking behind including this but it fails CORPDEPTH in any case — Preceding unsigned comment added by HighKing (talk • contribs) 19:02, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a commercial operator of an airliner the size of a Boeing 737 is worthy of an article and is notable. MilborneOne (talk) 11:58, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The stumbling block to the topic company's notability is a lack of references that meet NCORP. We need references. If you can point to references that meet the criteria please post a link below. HighKing++ 19:02, 1 November 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 2021 National League Division Series#Game 5. Daniel (talk) 22:33, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Final out of the 2021 National League Division Series

Final out of the 2021 National League Division Series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG as an occurrence that has not demonstrated WP:LASTING impact. Contested PROD, partial reason for contesting is a comparison to Kirk Gibson's 1988 World Series home run. That 1988 home run has demonstrated LASTING, while Wilmer Flores' checked swing strikeout has not been discussed in the press in the two weeks since it happened. This situation is closer to Wild Card Wednesday, the final game of the 2011 season, which some editors insisted was notable from the day that it happened, but has had no LASTING coverage since. The final out of the Giants/Dodgers series is covered by 2021 NLDS and material can be included on Flores' article and the checked swing article. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:32, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CHEAP? Lightburst (talk) 22:02, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not policy. Wizardman 00:15, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Might as well redirect per above, WP:CHEAP may not be policy but it's right there's no good reason not to redirect. Bestagon ⬡ 04:36, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But there is also no reason for such a redirect as no one is going to be search for that term on wikipedia. Do we also need articles for the first out of the World Series? Or the last out of the third inning of the sixth game of the season? This is ridiculous. Spanneraol (talk) 17:32, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also against a redirect because I don't see it as a relevant search term nor do I think there is any likelihood of this being split out into its own article in the future. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:38, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 04:15, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MobileCoin

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

Arguably doesn't meet WP:GNG and/or other related notability guidelines.

As it currently stands, the article requires quite a bit of cleanup as it relies heavily on primary and self-sourced material. There are only a handful of notable sources cited. Two are from Wired (same org, single source for notability purposes) and one from The Verge which barely says anything at all.

Wasn't able to find any other RS on the subject that could provide "significant coverage" from a quick web search. It could be that there is sufficient material, but not too sure.

HiddenLemon // talk 18:13, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. HiddenLemon // talk 18:13, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. HiddenLemon // talk 18:13, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. HiddenLemon // talk 18:13, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cryptocurrency-related deletion discussions. HiddenLemon // talk 18:16, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some sources that have covered MobileCoin, I'm not sure if any of them are considered significant and reliable?:

technical-tiresias (talk) 19:51, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Addressing the question whether 'significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject' applies, I tried to find a couple of articles about MobileCoin in the german news. The first mentions I found go back to 2017 and come from tech-publications [1] [2] and from 'Der Standard' [3] (a daily newspaper from Austria). More recent mentions have been in the tech publication heise/ct [4], from t3n [5], the online branch of the 't3n Magazin' (a publicatio specializing on digital finance), as well as in the largest german news site 'Der Spiegel' [6]. Of course Signal mentioned that they are integrating MobileCoin in their app [7]. The article would certainly benefit by adding sources like these. To me it looks like the subjet warrants its own article as, over a substantial time period, it has seen a wide range of independent news coverage by important and diverse publications, therefore I believe we should Keep it.ExperteImBademantel (talk) 20:43, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.pcwelt.de/a/mobilecoin-neue-kryptowaehrung-vom-signal-erfinder,3449174
  2. ^ https://www.golem.de/news/mobilecoin-neue-cryptowaehrung-von-signal-erfinder-marlinspike-1712-131733.html
  3. ^ https://www.derstandard.de/story/2000070655097/signal-erfinder-verspricht-bessere-bitcoin-alternative
  4. ^ https://www.heise.de/news/Signal-Messenger-integriert-Handy-Bezahlfunktion-auf-Blockchain-Basis-6007141.html
  5. ^ https://t3n.de/news/kryptowaehrung-signal-messenger-mobilecoin-1371002/
  6. ^ https://www.spiegel.de/netzwelt/apps/messenger-app-signal-testet-bezahlfunktion-mit-kryptowaehrung-a-f03e2d66-be58-44fd-b0fd-acfe697078b2
  7. ^ https://signal.org/blog/help-us-test-payments-in-signal/
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:23, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As per Explicit, as well as the citations from notable security researchers and the reliable sources it should be kept.Greatder (talk) 06:14, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Etzedek24 (I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record) 18:18, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep company meets notability guidelines and has significant coverage, such as 3 Techcrunch articles. Boredathome101 (talk) 01:39, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 05:44, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Popex

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

Fails WP:PRODUCT. References don't seem to work Imcdc (talk) 12:50, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Imcdc (talk) 12:50, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Imcdc (talk) 12:50, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Imcdc (talk) 12:50, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Imcdc (talk) 12:50, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Interconnected". The Guardian. London, Greater London, England. 2003-11-15. p. 238.
  2. ^ "Get out of the gutter, Greg". The Guardian. London, Greater London, England. 2003-03-03. p. 90.
  3. ^ "Your guide to online loafing". Evening Standard. London, Greater London, England. 2001-09-18. p. 320.
  4. ^ "New Media Diary". The Guardian. London, Greater London, England. 2001-09-03. p. 134.
  • Keep - per sources cited and a lack of WP:BEFORE. St★lwart111 05:16, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Apparently meets V, but the sources have nothing aside from passing mentions, and some of these notices also sound promotional. Fails WP:GNG. Avilich (talk) 01:08, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Some arguments are a bit weak; more discussion required.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:54, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the sourcing isn't great though as "popex" has been used for other things in the past and due to how long ago the service existed there may be inaccessible sources. A possible alternative to deletion would be to merge and improve the Celebdaq, which appears to have been an offshoot of Popex. However, as the two co-existed for four years as separate websites, I think keeping separate articles makes more sense. NemesisAT (talk) 12:13, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Celebdaq as an alternative to deletion. I don't believe there are enough reliable sources, from a cursory search, to write a proper article for Popex beyond a stub-length page. Unfortunately, the sources brought up by jp×g seemed to mostly contain mere passing mentions of the topic. But, it is an important part of Celebdaq's development history from what I can tell, so deletion is not an appropriate course of action. Haleth (talk) 00:39, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Etzedek24 (I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record) 18:16, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Really doesn't seem to be significant coverage even with the additional sources that have surfaced as part of this AFD discussion. Merging doesn't make sense to me as the Celebdaq article is about a completely different site that simply licensed the code used for Popex. DocFreeman24 (talk) 05:39, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The BBC News sources constitute primary sources in this case as they talk about the BBC's own Celebdaq; the Investegate one is a press release. music:)ally looks like blog, not a reliable source. The rest does not constitute significant coverage for Popex. Celebdaq already exists as a separate article. IceWelder [✉] 19:33, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    BBC News regularly covers other parts of the BBC in both a positive and a negative light. I think it's unfair to treat it as a primary source, as the news arm is a different team of people to those who setup Celebdaq. NemesisAT (talk) 19:38, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If someone created a redirect, I wouldn't contest it, but there is nothing sourced worth merging to the Celebdaq article. czar 02:21, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Czar. A brief mention on Celebdaq's page would be more fitting than a full-page merge. Heartmusic678 (talk) 10:43, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. No change since last relist, which I agree with. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:44, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fields of Action

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

Unreferenced board game article, BGG has no reviews and very few forum posts about this niche product. I prodded this with "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline nor the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies)'s section for products requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar." PROD was removed by User:Andrew Davidson with no useful rationale, so here we go. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:34, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:34, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:34, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:34, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm inclined to redirect and maybe merge a sentence to Lines of Action. Hobit (talk) 15:00, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have expanded this article with information from several sources.Guinness323 (talk) 23:29, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
BGG is a community wiki/review site and so not a RS. IGGamecenter is someone's personal project, not a RS. The last source cited is a commercial page that attributes stuff like game description to BGG. Sorry, but this is still zero RS and zero notability. There is a bit about the game's history but what is the RS for that? If an RS can be found, a redirect and merge to Lines of Action could be carried out. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:27, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sackson is a well-respected designer and so their games will naturally attract coverage. This case is no exception and it's easy to find such coverage in sources such as Games Magazine's 2nd Big Book of Games and Schmittberger's New Rules for Classic Games. The topic therefore passes WP:GNG and we should follow the usual policies of WP:ATD; WP:NOTPAPER and WP:PRESERVE. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:32, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Well respected according to whom? And given your track record of providing google hits as "coverage", please provide links to the sources you cite and analysis (confirm that the topic is discussed in a way that pases Wikipedia:SIGCOV if you'd like us to take your claim of coverage seriously. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:33, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's the nominator's job to make a case for action. Per WP:BEFORE, this includes a detailed search using tools such as Google Books. If a !voter does some of this work which the nominator has failed to do, the nominator has no right to demand more. See WP:CHOICE; WP:NOTCLEANUP; WP:SAUCE, &c. My !vote stands. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:02, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or perhaps Redirect somewhere. There is no claim of significance (WP:GNG) in the article, and the sources are either unreliable or off-topic --> about the designer or his prequel game, for example. - GizzyCatBella🍁 09:12, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:20, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Sid Sackson, where it is already included under his list of designed games. As already mentioned by GizzyCatBella, there is no actual claim of notability in the article. In addition, none of the introduced sources actually show any indication of notability either, on top of most of them not being from reliable sources. They are merely information on its publication history and/or a listing of its rules. There is no actual coverage or discussion of the game in them that would pass the WP:GNG. Rorshacma (talk) 00:12, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as Sackson is a major designer, and there is enough coverageJackattack1597 (talk) 21:51, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Where do you see the coverage? We don't have a single, reliable source that discusses this topic, do we? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:22, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect The Schmittberger source seems to be good, but as a listing of many games it seems to be rather brief, and likely has little more than the rules themselves. A web search returns nothing of worth aside from that source, and nothing else really demonstrates notability. Avilich (talk) 14:33, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Sid Sackson per WP:ATD. Topic fails WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 14:30, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Lines of Action. The Schmittberger source confirms that Sackson's creation was inspired by this game so I don't know why Piotrus is disputing the lack of reliable sources for that fact. Apparently he is writing off the source without reading it, which is ironic as he is criticising another contributor here for listing sources without reading them. SpinningSpark 17:56, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Did someone link Schmittberger source in a readable format? Right now I can't access it on Google Books. If Keep voters can't be bothered to ensure that their "best" sources are accessible for verification by others, it can be helped their "arguments" won't be well respected or influntial. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:15, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not my problem, or anyone elses, that you can't read the source and we don't reject reliable sources because they are not available online. To help you out, the book covers the topic over nearly two pages. On the fact under discussion it says "[Sackson] was inspired by Claude Souci's outstanding game Lines of Action". SpinningSpark 11:17, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you link those two pages, or are you using a physical copy? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:53, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I borrowed it from IA. SpinningSpark 12:15, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No significant coverage to give GNG with a WP:BEFORE yielding nothing significant or reliable. I can see usual arguments from the rescue squadron given above which do not meet policy or guidelines (inc. citing a source that doesn't mention the topic of this article). Keep arguments boil down to WP:SOURCESMUSTEXIST and that notability is inherited which I hope the closer disregards. I would also support a redirect. Vladimir.copic (talk) 02:08, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Vladimir.copic: Why do you not think a merge of this article would be appropriate? SpinningSpark 11:32, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose there would be no issue with any well sourced information being merged over but for something with so little notability I don’t think it’s too much of a problem. Vladimir.copic (talk) 12:22, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There does not seem to be a strong delete consensus, should the article be kept or redirected?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Etzedek24 (I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record) 18:15, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 21:10, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fraser P. Seitel

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

Renominating for deletion this WP:MILL publicist BLP, which was a "no consensus" when last considered some years ago. No RS sources have materialized in the intervening years, and still does not meet the criteria in WP:ANYBIO. Article is pieced together from self-published sources and the subject's own articles. Still nothing substantial written about this person so as to put him in the league of an Edward Bernays, as noted in initial deletion nomination, or David Finn. Authoring a textbook, and getting quoted a lot representing other people, does not satisfy ANYBIO. But the article subject is good at self-promotion, hence this article. Coretheapple (talk) 14:46, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coretheapple (talk) 14:46, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:11, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to 29th Canadian Ministry. Sandstein 16:57, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2021 Canadian cabinet reshuffle

2021 Canadian cabinet reshuffle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
2018 Canadian cabinet reshuffle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Articles about very minor events that fail the will people still need this article to exist ten years from now test. These were created late last year by a British editor on analogy to British articles like 2021 British cabinet reshuffle, but that British example literally has dozens of people moving around, whereas these have far, far fewer, and the British one has almost five times as much sourcing as either of these do -- and WikiProject Canada has never had a consensus that standalone articles about Canadian cabinet shuffles were needed (as witness the fact that these are the only two Canadian cabinet shuffle articles that exist at all, even though Canada has been having cabinet shuffles for over 150 years.) Information about portfolio reassignments can be, and already is, handled in the existing 29th Canadian Ministry, without needing separate articles about the shuffles as standalone "events" in their own right.
I can imagine a scenario where a Canadian cabinet shuffle could accumulate more notability than usual as an event — but the one I can think of that might potentially have a genuine case for that isn't even either of these, and we certainly wouldn't need an indiscriminate box set of hundreds of articles about every Canadian cabinet shuffle that's ever happened.
And even if for some reason these were to be kept, they would have to be moved on WP:ENGVAR grounds, as Canadian English doesn't call them reshuffles, we just call them shuffles. Bearcat (talk) 16:39, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:39, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:39, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/redirect to 29th Canadian Ministry. Both of these are just before-and-after listings of the positions members held, but this is already covered in the main article showing the tenures of members at each position. Reywas92Talk 17:12, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to 29th Canadian Ministry. These aren't notable enough for standalone articles, for all the reasons outlined above, but I do think there's use in explicitly noting when each shuffle took place and who joined or left. These tables would fit in easily on the ministry's page (albeit without the portraits).
  • Delete or Redirect to the 29th Canadian Ministry article. GoodDay (talk) 19:50, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The federal cabinet gets reshuffled as often as a deck of cards. (Okay, not that often, but often enough to be routine.) Clarityfiend (talk) 23:24, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect I created the articles because 29th Canadian Ministry is just a long table and is difficult to navigate. Moondragon21 (talk) 14:13, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 21:09, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of tallest structures in Isfahan

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

Per consensus at recent deletion discussions at List of tallest buildings in Pattaya, List of tallest buildings in Rajasthan and List of tallest buildings in Tagaytay, this list does not meet our notability standards. There is no evidence that these buildings are discussed as a group so the topic fails WP:LISTN. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:34, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Additional points for consideration:

  • Firstly, the list has no navigational purpose as the overwhelming majority of the buildings featured are not notable enough for their own Wikipedia article.
  • Secondly, this topic does not have WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS. Database listings in Emporis and Skyscraper Page do not constitute significant coverage.
  • I see no evidence that the topic 'List of tallest structures in Isfahan' is covered as a group by reliable secondary sources but I am happy to be proved wrong here.
  • No significant high-rise buildings under construction or even planned currently so little chance of future notability; no point in sending to draft.
  • The whole article is currently a violation of WP:NOTMIRROR as it is almost entirely a copy and paste from Emporis and Skyscraper Page.
  • The city is not the largest in Iran nor is it the capital.
  • I really do not believe that a building simply being more than 40m tall makes it notable.
  • The topic is already covered more than adequately at List of tallest structures in Iran, so this list is redundant. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:36, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. There is consensus against deletion. There is no consensus between merge and keep, but that can be explored further in a talk page merger proposal. Sandstein 10:37, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Armament of the Iowa-class battleship

Armament of the Iowa-class battleship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Was originally created to consolidate numerous weapon and weapon systems for the Iowa-class of battleships, but has degraded over the years and is now arguably bloated and probably housing some original research. Listing here first for community input on its fate, with the next step (if kept) being WP:FAR. TomStar81 (Talk) 14:31, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • ADDENDUM Since a lot of people seem to be having trouble with this, lemme clarify the AFD criteria:
    • WP:NOT (not an indiscriminate collection of information),
    • WP:CRUFT (highly detailed information of a very specific caliber),
    • WP:OR(sources may be lacking for some information, information could be based on first hand accounts of what worked best an not manuals),
    • WP:N (we have articles for all systems covered in this article that may serve as a better venue for the existing information, in which case consolidating it all here could be seen as unnecessary and/or a waste of electrons when they are notable enough to stand on their own).
Independent of these issues are those related to WP:WIAFA, however AFD is not for discussing FA/FAR/FARC related matters, those can be addressed elsewhere when and if the community decides the article should be kept. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:28, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:34, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The nominator says "probably housing some original research". Probably? If you don't even know it has a problem, don't waste everyone's time trying to delete it. If its "bloated" then that's a case for normal editing. I'm sure they check for that when they promote an article to "featured article" status. Dream Focus 15:57, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep per WP:SNOWBALL. You need a hell of a reason to delete a featured quality article, and “arguably bloated and probably housing some original research” absolutely doesn’t cut it. There are a million less drastic venues you could take this issue. Dronebogus (talk) 15:59, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I’ll admit even though the nom was a jackass about it I probably jumped the gun. I’m changing my vote to neutral. Dronebogus (talk) 17:59, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I feel I should point out that the nominator, TomStar81, also originally brought the article to FAC in the first place, and has commented on the degraded quality of it here. So the nomination should be taken in good faith. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:28, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:ATD-E - any issues with the article can be fixed through ordinary editing and discussion. An FAR would seem a good place to do that.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:31, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Andrew Davidson, Dream Focus, and Dronebogus: WAS ORIGINALLY CREATED TO CONSOLIDATE NUMEROUS WEAPON AND WEAPON SYSTEMS OF THE IOWA-CLASS OF BATTLESHIPS. Do you people read NONE of these nomination statements? If not then let me preschool this for you all so it'll be slightly more comprehensible to your apparently star struck eyes:
      • Do we still need a consolidated list? If so, then yes, keep, if not then should we delete.
      • If it's bloated and we trim, do we still think there'd be anything here worth independently expanding on? If not, then should it be deleted or converted to a list and moved to reflect that?
      • On the matter of original research, do we feel that the article could have any existing OR trimmed and still retain its usefulness, or on OR grounds do we feel TNT is justified here?
      • Should this be considered a subset of FANCRUFT? Essentially you've got a bunch of extraordinarily detailed information on obsolete weaponry and weaponry systems, most of which cold probably be better presented either in the individual articles or frankly ona different wiki/wikia set altogather where people can obsess over the extraordinarily detailed and intricate inner workings of the system(s) in question.
      • Is this at or above the threshold for notability? The battleships certainly are, but are the individual components? Most radar and sonar systems have no articles on site, and most of the existing articles discuss in the currently in use systems such as AEGIS - and even then in a more nuance way. If tyhe systems are no longer operable, do they still satisfy notability requirements to remain on site?
      • Is this now more akin to a how to guide? If so, should it be trimmed to bring it into compliance or not, and if so in what ways?
Don't gimme this "snow keep" bullshit when its overwhelming clear none of you even bothered to read the damn thing, nor have you put any meaningful thought into your keep votes. Try again, gentlemen, and this time try not to embarrass yourselves by getting giddy over the bronze star, shall we? TomStar81 (Talk) 16:34, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You did not give a valid reason for deletion for us to respond to. Use the talk page to discuss how to edit things, don't try to delete the entire article without a valid reason. I don't see it as akin to a how to guide. This is a valid spin-off article, it giving more information about key components to the battleship, that wouldn't fit in the main article. Dream Focus 16:48, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Because I trust people to be competent enough to read an article, its deletion nomination, and then articulate a reply. In your case you do now make a keep argument that is actually in line with my thinking, however with articles for the 16-inch/50-caliber Mark 7 gun (primary guns), 5-inch/38-caliber gun (secondary guns), Bofors 40 mm gun (primary AA-gun), Oerlikon 20 mm cannon (secondary AA-Gun), Tomahawk (missile) (Circa 180-1992), Harpoon (missile) (circa 180-1992), and Phalanx CIWS (primary AA-gun c.1980-1992), all of which do a much better job of presenting the information and with more accurate, less bloated, and better cited for the system-as-a-whole instead of used-on-the-ship approach as done here back in the mid 2000s I am leaning towards a position that deleting the article and instead linking to the individual sections works better for both the ships and the encyclopedia as a whole. dedicated pages for the individual systems allow for a better presentation of the weaponry systems including background information that would be out of place here on the summary page, which brings me back to the afd point as viewed through your point: do we even need this, or are we better served by outsourcing to the individual weapon systems to their respective page(s)? TomStar81 (Talk) 17:01, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • For once in my life I’m actually standing with Dream Focus. Don’t treat us like idiots when your initial reasoning was so poor as to necessitate a procedural snow close. Treating other editors like garbage is completely uncalled for. Dronebogus (talk) 17:15, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Dronebogus: <sigh> Per WP:CIR, it is my duty to inform you that without a valid reason based on existing policy and/or guideline related grounds your vote counts for nothing because we seek consensus and all you've said is you like the star. Liking the bronze star isn't a justifiable enough reason to keep an article (see WP:ILIKEIT for more information on this particular argument), therefore in the absence of any meaningful grounds to retain this article (list?) I am afraid that I must request that you !vote be disqualified from the discussion's finally outcome. I am, however, willing to extend to you an WP:AGF argument that, at some point over the next several days, you may yet figure out what it is you feel should be cited as proof that this article meets some sort of threshold to retain its position on wikipedia, at which point I will withdraw this comment and let your grounded-in-policy-or-guideline-keep stand. TomStar81 (Talk) 17:27, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I’m inclined not to just because you’re being a condescending jerk who clearly thinks I’m a moron. Dronebogus (talk) 17:31, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well its your choice: prove me wrong, or have your "keep" disqualified. I can work with either, though personally I'd prefer the former sine it makes for better consensus. TomStar81 (Talk) 17:36, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • It’s not about winning. I couldn’t care less about what happens as long as it’s based on reasonable consensus. However you seemingly want to “win” and rub it in my face to “prove” I’m an idiot, which is WP:UNCIVIL in the extreme. Dronebogus (talk) 17:39, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, it does seem that since this started consensus has emerged that I'm being a dick/asshole/jerk. Unfortunately, I can not argue that, as there is not only consensus for it but also proof of it all over this afd page (and I note only the afd page, i've kept it here specifically to avoid bumping up against WP:NPA, which I'm at this point DANGEROUSLY close to doing despite my best efforts). If you feel that the case before you presents enough evidence for reprimand your welcome to file your report at WP:ANI, you are after all an editor and should feel welcome on the site. As an admin, my MO is Be Thou For the People, failing to live up to that gets people slapped or in admin cases disqualified from wielding the tools under the worst circumstances. Do what you feel you need to do here and/or there, just remember that between the anger and the zingers there are good points being made here - points both of us could stand to listen to. TomStar81 (Talk) 17:53, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Much of this is cited to primary sources like "Naval Ordnance and Gunnery, Volume 1, Naval Ordnance, NAVPERS 10797-A. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Navy, Bureau of Naval Personnel. 1957." so I agree that this unique article is rather overly specific and crufty. I am not enough of an subject expert like the nominator to know what's important here, but this is an unusual level of detail that isn't necessarily encyclopedic beyond what should be consolidated to Iowa-class_battleship#Armament. Many of the individual arms were used on many ship types and have their own articles and need not be detailed here when linked. Reywas92Talk 17:10, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Dream Focus: See Reywas92's merge and reason? THAT is how you tell people who actually read the article from those who stopped at the star: they who have read the article grasp what's being debated here. Keep that in mind going forward: just because it has a star doesn't mean the afd is malformed, pointy, etc, the nominator may have a good reason for listing it. Always remember to judge on the merits of the nomination, not on the star. TomStar81 (Talk) 17:17, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You should've started a merge discussion then, not a discussion for deletion. Kindly close this and do things properly. Dream Focus 17:25, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, let it run, we'll see what the community has to say over the next few days. Hopefully, we can get betting input here than we've had so far. TomStar81 (Talk) 17:38, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nominator, who is a subject-matter expert and primary author. This can be handled better in the single article on the battleship class, as a significant component of the ships. Comments like As this is a Featured Article the nomination is either frivolous contrary to WP:POINT or a misunderstanding of AfD per WP:NOTCLEANUP are blatantly false, there is absolutely nothing pointy or misunderstanding here; nominator is a primary contributer. Hog Farm Talk 17:42, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The nominator is undeniably being highly uncivil though. Dronebogus (talk) 17:44, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • And the first several !votes appear to be actively assuming bad faith. Yes, this could be handled better, but a lot of the comments here appear to have not glanced any further than the star atop the article. Hog Farm Talk 17:50, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • I disagree that they come across as assuming bad faith, at least compared to “let me preschool you” “<sigh>” bold all-capsing, and everything else the nom did to make me, Dream Focus et al. feel like crap. Dronebogus (talk) 17:53, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'd say As this is a Featured Article the nomination is either frivolous contrary to WP:POINT or a misunderstanding of AfD per WP:NOTCLEANUP is clearly an assumption of a frivolous nomination e.i. bad faith. Hog Farm Talk 17:55, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • This is sort of a “mote in your brother’s eye, log in your eye” situation, but in any case it’s irrelevant to the discussion so I’m dropping it. Dronebogus (talk) 17:57, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Perhaps an AfD should wait until the article is not featured on the main. I am unfamiliar with the featured section - and had to search it to find it, but there is likely WP:NORUSH. I suggest withdraw the nomination until it is not an FA. - that way there is not an big template that readers can follow into the back of the butcher shop and see How the sausage gets made. Lightburst (talk) 18:36, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lightburst, that conversation has been made, and it was decided to take it here first. Hog Farm Talk 18:38, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Lightburst: Concur with Hog Farm. There is absolutely no mandate anywhere on this site that explicitly states that an article must be demoted in order to be deleted. Will you all please stop getting hung up on the star and do you part? Please? Its not asking much to to type keep, delete, merge, and a valid, policy and/or guideline based reason for your !vote, is it? Lets not make mountains out of mole hills here... TomStar81 (Talk) 18:41, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        Understood TomStar81 and Hogfarm. I am late to the party, but I am hung up on the star. It is like a DYK or in the news on the front page with a template tag. If we feature it on the main, we shouldn't have these kind of questions about it. No rush is just an essay, but it is relevant to this discussion. I am merely commenting here. Lightburst (talk) 18:50, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        Wikipedia:Featured content Dream Focus 18:55, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        " Its not asking much to to type ... a valid, policy and/or guideline based reason for your !vote". Ironic you should mention that, as there is not a valid policy/guideline reason in your nomination. It's perfectly legitimate for participants to respond with keep per no valid WP:DELREASON under those circumstances. SpinningSpark 19:31, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Lightburst: I know, and I get that. The problem though is that such behavior sets a very dangerous precedent by advertising that if you can get an article to FA status it becomes, for all intents and purposes, "immune" from the demands of WP:RS, WP:N, WP:OR, WP:NOT, WP:WIAFA, WP:CRUFT, WP:CREEP, WP:CONSENUS (Consensus can change), etc. If we are to ensure that we police the site fairly and justly according to our policy and guideline pages then we must apply those standards and the changes to those standards to all articles, including those that hold the highest ranking available. This comes back to our not being a paper encyclopedia and to the fact that over time all things change. Its been 14 years since this article got its star and in that time no other ship article has ever had its weaponry and weapon systems consolidated into one page like this, and in the time since the page was created the specific systems covered have had their own individual pages vastly expanded. We have to take all of this into account here to decide the outcome, which means looking beyond the bronze star in the right corner. Consider if you will a crime seen: the usual suspects may be the prime suspects, but if the science tells you they didn't do it then another solution must be found that satisfies the narrative presented by evidence at hand. To quote Sherlock Holmes, "If you eliminate the impossible then whatever remains, however improbable, must be true." In this case, if we subtract the bronze star and the bloat, what remains is selected information either already present in other articles better able to handle the subject matter or information that didn't belong here anyway, in which case the article's purpose on Wikipedia is moot because other articles handle it better. I know it can be hard, but we have to look at this article objectively, not emotionally, otherwise we risk retaining a page that doesn't need to be here. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:06, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      I see now that this not similar to a DYK or major feature in that it is not front page. So this discussion is less unpalatable. But only slightly. Thanks: I could have had a V8. Lightburst (talk) 19:40, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I can see no valid reason in the nom for deletion. If, as the nominator claims, the article has accumulated a lot of cruft, that can be dealt with by normal editing. At worst, it could be reverted all the way back to when it became a Featured Article. Merge back into the main article may be an option, but that will still require the work of trimming out the cruft and it will still not be deleted so the page history is retained for attribution. As the nominator is discovering, AFD is not the best place to resolve such issues. For the avoidance of doubt, I am not offering an opinion on merge, but what I will say is that I found what I read of the article (I didn't read the whole thing) I found the detail fascinating, and just what I would expect of such an article. I don't think any of it is unencyclopaedic and I would hate to see that detail lost in a merge. SpinningSpark 19:14, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fair points, although I will note there really isn't any reason why we couldn't salvage what we need from the article's weaponry sections and add those to the articles on the 16-inch/50-caliber Mark 7 gun, 5-inch/38-caliber gun, Bofors 40 mm gun, Oerlikon 20 mm cannon, Tomahawk (missile), Harpoon (missile), and Phalanx CIWS. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:28, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Spinningspark: For the record, the first version noted in the history with the bronze star is dated March 30, 2007, at which time the article looked like this. I post this for your consideration and out of respect for your point concerning rolling back the clock, as it were. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:39, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        Comparing those versions make it easy to see the crufty stuff that has been added. The cleaning procedure of the main armament after firing seems pretty over the top for instance. And is it even correct? I'm pretty sure they didn't spend a whole day cleaning the gun after every time it was fired in a battle situation. So I agree with the noms complaint, but it is still a WP:FIXABLE problem and thus not grounds for deletion. SpinningSpark 08:18, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and FAR. This clearly isn't an FA any more in terms of the criteria, regardless of the star. I mean it contains a pretty fulsome how-to on the loading and operation of the Mk 12 5-in gun, which might even be too much detail for the article on the weapon. It is a ridiculously high level of detail for an article of this type. There are many more significant issues. Far be it for me to insist on bureaucratic procedure, but I think the first step would be to FAR it and if it is delisted then determine its future at that time. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:25, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Bringing together information on fire control systems and armament in one article is a good thing to do - the various components of fire control systems and the armament need to work together. It is appropriate for this article to go into a much greater level of detail than is appropriate for an article on the ship class. I think the article could be much improved - there is a problem with articles on things like ships that some editors remove information that they cannot understand, or do not understand the significance of.-- Toddy1 (talk) 16:49, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge This sort of well-written article is what we should strive to have. It clearly meets all required criteria, but can better be contained elsewhere. Buffs (talk) 18:02, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. For reasons cited above. I agree with User:Spinningspark and his reasoning. No reason cited. The reasoning sounds a lot of WP:I don't like it. Article is featured for a reason. WP:Not paper so redundancy is no reason delete (or merge). Perfectly good article. WP:Preserve. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:17, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Hog Farm. Those berating the nominator here should be ashamed of their behavior, as they clearly haven't read the article or its Talk page to understand that this is a request to gather consensus on what should happen next with this collection of content, not just to nuke it into orbit. --Laser brain (talk) 12:48, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Reywas92 and Hog Farm. Mztourist (talk) 04:09, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Iowa-class battleship, we also have independent articles for most of the sub-systems. Cavalryman (talk) 10:20, 31 October 2021 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete. While I agree with the reasoning of Reyway92 and Hog Farm, it's worth noting that the Iowa-class battleship article already has a 1,300-word "Armaments" heading and likely does not require merging; even if we gut the uncited cruft that has grown at this article since its FAC it still stands at over 3,000 words and I can't see all of that being needed at the parent article without being wildly undue in weight. As it stands this feels like an overgrown content fork cited largely to primary sources, which wouldn't pass muster on GNG if it were created today. This is in no way a knock on the nominator's original efforts but unfortunately it's possible to expend good work in poor directions. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 23:54, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or Re-direct - to which ever article the imputing editors here, think best. GoodDay (talk) 01:23, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect for now. Restore afterwards if the problems can be solved, leave it at that if they can't, and merge whatever is deemed suitable from the edit history. Nominator could have just done a bold redirect instead of taking this to AfD, since the issue has already been discussed on the talk page. Avilich (talk) 22:39, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The information looks good and well referenced, the only argument for merging would be if there were space in the main article, the main article is already too long, and so per WP:SUMMARY, the correct thing is to spin-off subtopics. This is a valid sub-topic, the material is detailed and well-referenced, and I see absolutely no-problem with it. The information is not indiscriminate; it is niche, but so is a lot of things we publish at Wikipedia, per WP:NOTPAPER, I am unconvinced we are better served by removing the information entirely, and per WP:PRESERVE, if we're keeping it the best place to keep it is here, per WP:SUMMARY. The idea that the article has degraded from a formerly FA-level status also bears no weight, WP:NOTCLEANUP, if the article has degraded, then WP:SOFIXIT and restore it to the state it was when it was good enough to be an actual featured article. --Jayron32 18:07, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, ?. I see nothing wrong with the page. Things like this are one reason I veer away from deletion discussions. On top of that many long-time editors who post worthwhile analysis and comments on AfD pages are now under what seems like a well-attended and successful simultaneous purging attempt to cancel them from AfD, and that's such a strange and over-the-top thing to encounter within and from such a principled and worthy project as Wikipedia that I have no more words. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:43, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nomination fails to argue for a deficit that cannot be fixed by normal editing. Jclemens (talk) 07:21, 3 November 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) Nomination withdrawn JW 1961 Talk 17:36, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Khemdee

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

Fails WP:NFOOTBALL as he has not yet played in a fully professional league or a full international. I'm not finding anything that could establish WP:GNG either. JW 1961 Talk 14:27, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Done. Drmies (talk) 14:41, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ali MansouR

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

If you think that you've seen this article before, it's because you probably have. It may have been at Draft:Ali Mansour, Ali Mansour, Ali Mansour (actor) and various other places. The last letter of his surname has been capitalised in an attempt to circumvent the salting. Whilst it has been speedy deleted under WP:G5 numerous times, I can't find any AfDs on this subject that actually reached a conclusion. I'm submitting this for AfD as I believe that the subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR and may even be a hoax, to an extent - the claim that he played football for PSG is particularly laughable.

This currently is not eligible for speedy deletion as the creator is not yet blocked for being a sockpuppet and, given the backlog at SPI, this may take a few days (I also am not sure who the sockmaster for this farm even is as all of the socks seem to be blocked without tags). AfD will enable us to establish deletion through WP:G4 for any future attempts to game the system by creating this article under a slightly different name again and again. Please do not be fooled by the number of references present, they are largely user-generated or paid-for content. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:23, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:45, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kimber Riddle

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

Five so-so credits and no significant media notice do not satisfy WP:NACTOR. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:53, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:15, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:15, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:15, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:22, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, does not rise to NACTOR. Some appearances in lists of roles in movies, but no significant coverage. Pikavoom (talk) 08:05, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 05:45, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nariman Mehta

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

Does not meet notability requirements. Claimed notability is that he invented a notable drug, but notability is not inherited; there are not enough sources that are not self-published. Page was created almost immediately after his death, and had effectively not been edited since, suggesting that it is unlikely that more sources will be released to increase notability. Smith(talk) 15:27, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:32, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:33, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge to Bupropion. It seems this article was created in spite of WP:NOTMEMORIAL. He has some coverage in a local obituary, which can be used to document some facts about him after the merge. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:01, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Radioactive (talk) 02:07, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Radioactive (talk) 02:07, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep in addition to his invention he also published multiple research papers with 4 of them cited > 100 times. This is generally enough to pass NPROF around here (also taking into account the field and time when citation rates were lower). --hroest 19:07, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 04:12, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 04:12, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete with regret. I'm surprised to say I can't find any other obituaries besides the one in the Times-News mentioned above, or any other independent sources that even mention the subject. hroest above mentions paper citations and WP:NPROF, but two of those top four hits aren't papers, they're US patents. So not exactly our typical academic activity (have patent citations been discussed before? If so, I can't recall). So I don't think the citations show a "significant impact in their scholarly discipline", which is the point of that criterion of NPROF. Ajpolino (talk) 20:26, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle (talk • contribs) 19:18, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would like to see criteria for PROF broadened to cope with scientists in industry from a few decades ago. Many of the routes by which academics become notable simply weren't done back then: there were fewer named chairs, and industrial people wouldn't have held them; industrial chemists didn't tend to publish as much, or be editors of major journals. And yet they changed the world, and people nowadays have a legitimate interest in who they were. It's an awkward situation. Elemimele (talk) 21:29, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - while well-meaning and good-faith, the nomination here includes a misunderstanding of WP:INHERIT. The idea is that notability isn't inherited through some peripheral association with a notable something; the brother of a notable politician, the subsidiary of a notable company, the stablemate of a notable product. It is not, however, designed to prevent people from being considered notable for having made a significant contribution to their field. In fact, such an idea is directly contradictory to WP:CREATIVE and WP:ANYBIO #2. Making a notable contribution - authoring a notable book, directing a notable film, designing a notable building - is not a matter of incidentally inheriting notability from the thing you created. There is still an argument as to whether that contribution is significant enough to warrant inclusion, but that's a very different discussion. In this case we're talking about someone who created something that is on the WHO Model List of Essential Medicines. Yes, that's now a big list but it includes things like paracetamol, morphine and oxygen. This is something that is also the 27th most prescribed drug in the US. That's a significant enough contribution for me. St★lwart111 23:13, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe you have misunderstood the meaning of the guidelines you linked. WP:CREATIVE lists additional criteria under which a person is likely to be notable, not presumed to be notable. And WP:ANYBIO #2 has a footnote saying "a person who is 'part of the enduring historical record' will have been written about, in depth, independently in multiple history books in that field", contradicting your assertion. It is quite possible for a book to be notable while its author is not, a wine to be notable while its winemaker is not, a song to be notable while its composer is not (or may even be unknown). In the same way, it is possible for a drug to be notable while its inventor is not, if the inventor has not been written about. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:52, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    And its possible for both to be notable, and for him to be notable for having made a significant contribution to his field, and I believe he has. That's not the sort of thing WP:INHERIT is designed to prevent. St★lwart111 04:47, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No one has argued that he didn't make a significant contribution to his field. The guidelines you linked, however, do not suggest that this qualifies as an automatic presumption of notability without him also having been written about. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:31, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, you missed the first word of that footnote which starts, "Generally..." and generally that's true. Specifically, in this instance, substantiation is in the form of consideration and inclusion in a list of things deemed essential by experts in the field. Such lists being, quite literally, an enduring historical record. And ultimately, that might not be enough for you (and that's fine) but it's more than enough for me. St★lwart111 23:26, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:45, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 14:13, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep agree with the arguments put forth by hroest. His papers have been cited several times so there is good impact of his research. Advait (talk) 08:44, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:44, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Knights Drum and Bugle Corps

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

Contested PROD. No assertion of notability, no placement first, second or third in national competition. Significant independent sources do not appear to exist outside the walled-garden Drum Corps International ecosystem, other incidental mentions are insufficient to establish notability, merely supporting existence. Acroterion (talk) 16:37, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Acroterion (talk) 16:37, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:52, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No proper secondary sourcing here, just another organizational website planted into Wikipedia. Drmies (talk) 17:17, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Bgsu98 (talk) 02:51, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep indeed, article needs work on sourcing and perhaps a less chatty tone. Admittedly the drum corps community might not be large, but this group has been around forever, so is very well known in the community. The loss of this article would not help Wikipedia in my opinion. W Nowicki (talk) 20:32, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: AFD is not a vote, Bgsu98 will need to expand their comment citing relevant policies and guidelines.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:26, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - The article is a bit messy in the moment, but local secondary sources and a good bit of clean-up can help the article tremendously. Yoshiman6464 ♫🥚 01:38, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep It's not too surprising to me that a drum corp would mostly have coverage in drum corp sources, but that being said I'm sure they're reliable on that topic. - Scarpy (talk) 19:53, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Scarpy, the essence of the GNG is that we need independent sourcing--the DCI is not independent. Drmies (talk) 03:42, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • That’s not what independent means in the GNG "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent. A drum Corp magazine isn’t the the same as the blue knights drum corp. - Scarpy (talk) 04:06, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, Scarpy, then please cite the publications that you say are independent. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:35, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • You mean sources that are not published by the Blue Knights? The last four that are not DCI.org (which is a little like the citing the MLB for information about the Rockies). - Scarpy (talk) 17:29, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • Well, Scarpy, that leaves three sentences from a local TV channel, a link to the repertoire on what appears to be a fan site, and a now-dead link that in the end redirects to the same fan site. The Rockies are, of course, notable because they are a major professional organization and pass the GNG in flying colors. None of that applies here. 18:02, 19 October 2021 (UTC)Drmies (talk)
multiple means more than one. If you count those, there's three, and three is more than one. And there's many more promising sources than that. You can go through this list and nitpick if you'd like.
Lyons, Luke (2019-06-14). "Blue Knights Drum and Bugle Crops. makes annual trip to Pueblo". The Pueblo Chieftain. Retrieved 2021-10-20.
Silber, Alissa. "Visiting Blue Knights Entertain Newtown Crowds". Thew Newtown Bee.
"Blue Knights Drum And Bugle Corps To Rehearse At Blue & Gold Stadium, Friday". The Newton Bee.
Magers, Lisa (2017-07-21). "Former member of Golden Pride performing with Blue Knights". Celburne Times-Review. Retrieved 2021-10-20.
Lipomi, Peter (2016-07-31). "Students dedicate summer Blue Knights Drum and Bugle Corps". KMGH-TV. Retrieved 2021-10-20.
Hays, Julie (2018-07-17). "Central Texas steps up to help California drum & bugle corps". KWTX. Retrieved 2021-10-20.
Daley, Jillian (2015-06-04). "Marching to the beat of their own drummers". Lake Oswego Review. Retrieved 2021-10-20.
Brown, Andrea (2018-06-22). "Sauerkraut Band: Music, fun and fermented cabbage since 1968". HeraldNet. Retrieved 2021-10-20.
"Celebrating 50 Years of Making People Laugh & Smile, the Sauerkraut Band Continues to March". Everett Post. 2018-04-19. Retrieved 2021-10-20.
"OCN Interview: We Set Down With Dave Marvin, the Director of the Broncos Stampede". Our Community Now. 2018-10-15. Retrieved 2021-10-21.
Inbody, Kristen (2015-10-12). "Havre marching band turning heads on Hi-Line". Great Falls Tribue. Retrieved 2021-10-21.
Trowbridge, Julia (2017-07-17). "Colorado State University students participate in Drums Along the Rockies". The Rocky Mountain Collegian. Retrieved 2021-10-20.
Erthlake, Bill (2020-07-15). "New band director discusses goals". Greensburg Daily News. Retrieved 2021-10-21. - Scarpy (talk) 08:05, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 14:10, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to Oware. Sandstein 21:23, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eson xorgol

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

Last AfD few months ago ended up in soft delete due to nobody else participating; and the article has been apparently restored with no improvement. BEFORE has found next to no reliable sources, no SIGCOV of this game, the best we have is a passing mention of the name in a footnote of an academic article (see previous AfD for source links). The article still cites no sources and has an EL to an unreliable wiki. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:45, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:45, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mongolia-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:45, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kazakhstan-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:45, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see this link is actually included in the article, and there is a little confusion over the accuracy of the researchers assessments. All the same, it appears to be a reasonable redirect target for the present. BilledMammal (talk) 11:18, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 13:15, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 13:50, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This web archive external link to another wiki lists two offline publications as sources about the game. Having not looked at them myself I can't say what coverage there actually is in those sources, but it does give some potential leads if anyone is able to access those books.4meter4 (talk) 01:34, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 14:09, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 05:46, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OPTEL Group

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

Lack of notability, failing WP:CORP. The sources provided are not independent, as almost all sources taken from prnewswire. Thank you. SunDawntalk 14:31, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SunDawntalk 14:31, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:37, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Frood, Arran (2017-10-06). "Mission control: Drug developers test the 'benefit corporation' business model". Nature medicine. 23 (10): 1117–1118. (peer reviewed)
  • Forcinio, Hallie (2019-07-01). "Automating Quality Checks: Today's inspection systems catch tinier flaws, manage data, and increasingly rely on artificial intelligence to further boost performance". Pharmaceutical technology Europe. 31 (7): 35. (peer reviewed)
  • "OPTEL Group on Track for Record Year in Asia-Pacific Pharma Sales". Investment Weekly News: 238. 2021-03-27.
  • "Louis Roy of Optel Group named EY Entrepreneur Of The Year 2017 Quebec". Canada NewsWire. 2017-11-10.
  • "Global Size of Food Traceability Market Expected to Reach USD 24,406.80 Million by 2026: Facts & Factors: [225+ Pages Research Report] According to Facts and Factors market research report, the Global Food Traceability Market size & share revenue is expected to grow from USD 14,314.95 Million in 2020 to reach USD 24,406.80 Million by 2026, at 9.3% annual CAGR growth during forecast period of 2019-2027. The top market companies profiles included in report with their sales, revenues and strategies are C.H. Robinson, Bio-Rad Laboratories Inc, OPTEL GROUP, Cognex, Honeywell International Inc., SGS SA, Z". NASDAQ OMX's News Release Distribution Channel. 2021-07-29.
  • "8th Annual InnoPack Pharma Confex engages industry audience". BioSpectrum. 2019-05-23.
  • "Mergers & Acquisition News: OPTEL Acquires Verify Brand to Set the Stage for End-to-End Traceability". Newstex Trade & Industry Blogs. 2017-12-09.
  • Sarah Jones (2020-11-13). "Could the Food Supply Chain Hold the Solution for Fashion?". Sourcing Journal.
  • Jean-Louis Chamard (2020-06-01). "Valorisation des matières organiques: Retour sur le colloque annuel 2020". Vecteur Environnement. 53 (2): 30–31.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:15, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - WP:TNT and re-create via AfC if sources are present to meet WP:NCORP. --Ramaswar(discuss) 16:43, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 11:49, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 14:06, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete WP:NOTDIRECTORY — no notable information in article. Just because the company exists (and may be on stock exchange) doesn't guarantee notability. -- rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 19:40, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was draftify to Draft:Vikram Vedha (2022 film). Consensus was to delete, but I'll drafity in case the film becomes notable after release. The most compelling argument in this discussion is that this future film fails WP:NFF because there is no evidence that the production itself is notable. This was not adequately refuted in the discussion. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 05:52, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vikram Vedha (2022 film)

Vikram Vedha (2022 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Vikram Vedha (2022 film)

This film does not satisfy future film guidelines. This draft or article is about an unreleased film. The film notability guideline identifies three stages in the production cycle for films:

  • 1. Planned films that have not begun production (principal photography or animation). These planned films do not satisfy film notability.
  • 2. Films that are confirmed by reliable sources to have begun production, but have not been released. These films are only notable if production itself satisfies general notability in terms of significant coverage. Mere mention of the start of production does not satisfy notability.
  • 3. Films that have been released, whose notability is determined primarily by reception and reviews.

This film page must be evaluated based on general notability of production. Category:AfC comment templates Of the three references that are listed to state that principal photography has begun, two are press releases making a passing mention, and one does not appear to mention the film at all.

Number Reference Remarks Independent Significant Reliable Secondary
1 News18.com Announcement of the film No No Yes No
2 New Indian Express Announcement of stars No No Yes No
3 Firstpost.com Announcement of stars No No Yes No
4 ANInews.in Press release of start of principal photography No No. Passing mention. Yes No
5 Indiatoday.in Press release of start of principal photography No No. Passing mention. Yes No
6 Indiaglitz.com Announcement about a different show. If it mentioned this film, it was hard to see. No. No. No

There is already a draft. This article can be merged into the draft or deleted. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:08, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:08, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:08, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This project satisfies WP:NFF since it began principal photography yesterday (October 15), is a high-profile project and has been receiving substantial news coverage for over two-three years. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:15, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Kailash29792: NFF doesn't draw a single line at 'principal photography started'. And its pre-production marketing likely doesn't matter. Until the film is released, an article is discouraged unless the production process itself is noteworthy. Platonk (talk) 08:34, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails to satisfy WP:NFF because there is no indication that the production itself is notable. Per NFF: "Additionally, films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines." Platonk (talk) 08:34, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: As per what User:Kailash29792 said. Hyderabadi (talk) 14:06, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I am agreed with Platonk. Barrettmagic Talk 13:33, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Passes NFF (principle photography has commenced) the highly successful SNG for temporary lessening the strictness for the GNG to apply. Sources will arise, imminently, and there is currently a plethora of sources, and this page history is the places to keep the history of edits and swapping in of better sources. Readers want this article, and readers must not be sent to draftspace. This reading of NFF has been highly successful for a very long time. It is a very strong predictor of successful articles, and it works excellently for new editors. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:22, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@SmokeyJoe: (A) You misunderstand NFF. (B) Which SNG? (C) If you want to change a policy or guideline, this is not the venue for it. Go to the talk page of the policy or guideline you wish to change, or to one of the noticeboards, to bring up your issues there. (D) Wikipedia is NOT a directory, and especially not a film directory! Whether or not 'the world' wants Wikipedia to become the be-all-and-end-all directory of all things... it is not, never has been, never tried to be, and has tried hard not to be. Platonk (talk) 08:57, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with SmokeyJoe. The film is one of the most anticipated movies of Bollywood. Also many editors are added and adding more reliable sources and developing and expanding the article. Hyderabadi (talk) 11:08, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 14:05, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Now the article has been expanded and developed. So I suggest to give your vote after seeing the article. Just don't give vote by seeing the nomination. Hyderabadi (talk) 07:52, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per SmokeyJoe and Kailash29792 -GorgonaJS (talk) 17:46, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per 4meter4 as an alternative to deletion. Heartmusic678 (talk) 11:03, 5 November 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 13:27, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sharon Aarons

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

The article has been in existence since 2014 and seems to have only ever been a vehicle to promote the subject and her research. Since then it has been substantially edited by the subject, and it remains very short on references other than primary ones. I don't think that the minimum notability requirements for academics are met. Deb (talk) 13:23, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:28, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chukwudubem Ukaigwe

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

It is far too soon for an emerging artist to have an encyclopedia article when they have not even had a chance to a create a body of work that could eventually receive critical attention in reliable sources. As it is, not only is there no coverage, there is nothing to cover. Vexations (talk) 13:24, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Vexations (talk) 13:24, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:29, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:29, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if and when he has a stronger notability claim. Every artist is not automatically entitled to have a Wikipedia article just because he exists — the notability test requires him to have reliable source coverage about him, such as critical analysis of his work and/or evidence that he's won a notable art award. But two of the three footnotes here are just primary source "staff" profiles on the self-published websites of galleries he's been directly affiliated with, which are not support for notability, and the only one that comes from a reliable source media outlet is not covering him in the context of accomplishing anything that would pass WP:CREATIVE, but in the context of advocating for something to be done about an issue — and regardless of where you come down on the question of whether that helps to support notability or not, it doesn't secure notability all by itself if it's the only notability-contributing source in the pool. Even just passing WP:GNG takes quite a bit more than just one valid footnote. Bearcat (talk) 15:27, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I found another reference and added that the article, but agree it is too soon, or else he is known for only one thing.WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:48, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:31, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unscrewed with Martin Sargent

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

Does not pass WP:GNG. I can't find any in depth sources. The show does not WP:INHERIT notability from its hosts, guests, or producers. TipsyElephant (talk) 12:43, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:33, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tech News Today

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

Does not pass WP:GNG. Searching for sources resulted in a few WP:ROUTINE mentions in regards to a single event where the show was removed from YouTube for copyright violations. The rest of the results I found were passing mentions and most of those were from sources listed at WP:RSP as situational or unreliable such as WP:BI and WP:FORBESCON. The show does not WP:INHERIT notability from its hosts, guests, or producers. A potential redirect target is TWiT.tv. TipsyElephant (talk) 12:27, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:34, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ardo (title)

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

Can't find any reliable sources that suggest this term even exists. ––FormalDude talk 12:24, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Ultimately, consensus determined that this incident does not go beyond routine news coverage. ✗plicit 13:38, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Joe Whitchurch

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

Wikipedia is not news. ––FormalDude talk 12:17, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've had deletions in the past and want it to stay? This incident has notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Disturb995 (talk • contribs) 14:02, 26 October 2021 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Disturb995 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]
    @Disturb995: There will need to be a lot more sources in order to prove notability. Can you provide any? ––FormalDude talk 04:36, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@FormalDude How many sources? I can find some [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]

References

  1. ^ https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-58437817
  2. ^ https://westbridgfordwire.com/mum-murdered-joe-whitchurch-welcomes-council-plans-to-prevent-further-lives-being-lost/
  3. ^ https://www.nottinghampost.com/news/local-news/friends-said-boy-16-who-5854246
  4. ^ https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9950501/Drug-dealer-guilty-murdering-boy-16-row-three-four-grams-cocaine.html
  5. ^ https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/heartbroken-mum-boy-16-stabbed-23241920
  6. ^ https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/13610359/schoolboy-dies-boxing-day-stabbing-mum-tribute/
  7. ^ https://www.whitchurchherald.co.uk/news/national/18548697.man-accused-stabbing-three-friends-death-reading-park-attack/
  8. ^ https://dailyuknews.com/uk-news/police-launch-murder-probe-as-boy-16-who-was-stabbed-in-targeted-attack-dies-in-hospital/
  9. ^ https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-58409846
  10. ^ https://www.pressreader.com/uk/nottingham-post/20210818/281522229161983
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 13:39, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Georgi Bachvarov

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

Despite playing 16 mins of professional football 12 years ago, which, at best, is a weak presumption of passing WP:GNG, there doesn't appear to be any truly significant coverage of this particular Bachvarov. A Bulgarian source search returns sources that only relate to namesakes and my other searches yielded only a passing mention in a match report and an injury announcement hosted on his club's own website. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:02, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:40, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Golze

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

The claim to notability is that she is best known for her typewriter art, but the only source in the article doesn't mention that at all. There is a claim that she has had a solo exhibition, but it is difficult to say where: "London, bookart bookshop" probably refers to bookartbookshop (http://bookartbookshop.com) on the corner of Pitfield Street and Charles Square in Hoxton, which isn't exactly a major venue. There don't appear to exist any reviews of that exhibition, nor of any of her work. There is no significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Vexations (talk) 11:37, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. The quality of the discussion is poor. It rarely addresses the policy questions at issue: do the sources in the article sustain it in the light of WP:N, WP:RS and WP:NOR? Sandstein 10:44, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of damaged Islamic and Azerbaijani sites during the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict

List of damaged Islamic and Azerbaijani sites during the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This incomprehensible bulk of POV text and unverifiable list of partisan claims does not meet basic criteria for an article on English Wiki and serves to incriminate the "enemy vandal nation" It violates WP:ADVOCACY, WP:VERIFY, WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV policies. --Armatura (talk) 17:02, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. --Armatura (talk) 17:02, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. --Armatura (talk) 17:02, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. --Armatura (talk) 17:02, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. --Armatura (talk) 17:02, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. --Armatura (talk) 17:02, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. --Armatura (talk) 17:02, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. Poorly sourced article. Fails verification by third party, non-partisan sources. The title alone is a violation of NPOV (Islamic and Azerbaijani ???) and should be renamed to List of cultural and religious sites damaged during the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and include both Azerbaijani and Armenian damaged sites, the list is pretty short anyways. Still in favor of deleting it rather than keeping it with these sources. Eurofan88 (talk) 19:32, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Improve. Destruction of Shusha city was describes with neutral sources in the lead. Article has references from BBC and Amnesty International. I also agree on adding Armenian sites damaged during the war. Also in talk page, one user called it one that serves to incriminate a whole nation, and to advance dangerous Armenia vs Islamic World concept. With that logic, we should delete any article about Islamic terrorism since it may anger Muslim readers.--Abutalub (talk) 21:44, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. First, there is a problem in the title of the article: "Azerbaijani" and "Islamic" mean the same thing, why separate them? Secondly, since there is no press freedom and Azerbaijan is ranked 167 in the World Press Index Freedom, so the "Azerbaijani side claims" section looks very much like propaganda, since even years after the war, the claims were not confirmed by third-party sources. Also, a title proposed by Eurofan88 List of cultural and religious sites damaged during the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict seems controversial. Since the conflict has lasted from 1988 to the present day, how can one qualify that this or that building was damaged during the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict? For future, "List of [cultural and religious] sites damaged or destroyed in Nagorno-Karabakh and surrounding areas" can be my proposed option using only third party reliable sources (without any claims from all sides). Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 19:53, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read the article because it includes neutral sources about how Shusha and Azerbaijan graves are destroyed.--Abutalub (talk) 22:10, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think the title could be improved. As for the context, destruction of Azerbaijani cultural heritage is well documented by third party sources, and there is also plenty of photo and video evidence. Grandmaster 21:23, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Improve. If it can include both Azerbaijani and Armenian monuments and be renamed to List of damaged Azerbaijani and Armenian sites during the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict it should be kept.Carthago814 (talk) 14:04,20 October 2021 (UTC)
What means "during the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict"? For example, is the destroyed medieval Armenian cemetery in Nakhijevan considered destroyed "during the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict" or not? Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 08:00, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It should only include cultural heritage sites destroyed in the first and 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh wars and not the Armenian cemetary in Julfa that is cultural destruction. Carthago814 (talk) 10:20, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Julfa is also in Nakhchivan not Nagorno-Karabakh Carthago814 (talk) 10:27, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the sites in the list are outside of Nagorno-Karabakh. So it should be renamed to either "during Nagorno-Karabakh war" or "in Nagorno-Karabakh" as the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict started in 1998 and continues to this day. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 10:40, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, destruction of the Armenian medieval cemetery was described as 'the worst cultural genocide of the 21st century'[14]. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 10:46, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It also includes the former Armenian-occupied territories surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh. But renaming it to "List of damaged Azerbaijni and Armenian sites in Nagorno-Karabakh" would be clear. And the destruction of Julfa is already on the List of destroyed heritage while some Azerbaijni damaged heritage is not on the list. Carthago814 (talk) 11:04, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your interest in Islam, Turkey and related topics, but have you read the "article"? It is a classical case of kompromat - damaging information which may be used to create negative publicity. Roughy like Israeli demolition of Palestinian property. We have to remind ourselves the Wikipedia:Advocacy policy which dictates that Wikipedia is a not a place for advocacy, and advocacy is exactly what this "article" does. Wikipedia is not a repository either, what is the encyclopedic value of keeping a list like that? Have you looked at the sources? - 1news.az "Армянские вандалы разрушили (Armenian vandals destroyed)..."""". " "Erməni təxribatı (Armenian Provocation)".... etc. And what are "Azerbaijani sites" anyway, can anybody define that clearly? Sites in Republic of Azerbaijan? Soviet Azerbaijan? First Azerbaijan Republic? Iranian Azerbaijan? Would that include the disputed Nagorno Karabakh itself? If yes - which borders - before 1992-1994 or before 2020? How about sites that precede Azerbaijan as political or cultural entity? There are so many issues that I am afraid the best solution is deletion or a move to draftspace and only when it meets basic standards of wikipedia - to be reviewed and nominated for inclusion. The creator does not appear keen on improvement either - reverted an attempt of cleanup and constructive suggestions in talkpage were met with resistance and avoidance of questions. --Armatura (talk) 21:22, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Armatura, "Azerbaijani" here refers to Azerbaijani population of Nagorno Karabakh and adjacent territories. Are you denying that OSCE fact-finding mission found the Fuzuli city in ruins? Or Insitute for War and Peace reporting that Armenians burnt down Azerbaijani homes in Shusha? I am sure we can find Armenian sources that Azerbaijanis burnt down their own mosques too, right? Since we have article called Israeli demolition of Palestinian property, we can rename this article to List of damaged Azerbaijani properties.Abutalub (talk) 11:42, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a place for advocacy and ethnonational struggle, as simple as that. --Armatura (talk) 17:48, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
According to OSCE fact finding mission, 7 occupied districts of Azerbaijan are almost completely ruined. Which means that every Azerbaijani cultural monument there is ruined too. There is plenty of photo and video evidence available even on wiki commons.
Just a few examples, , I think they should be used in the article too, to illustrate the condition of every ruined monument.
  • Ashaghi Govhar Agha Mosque
    Ashaghi Govhar Agha Mosque
  • Mardinli Mosque
    Mardinli Mosque
  • Saatli mosque
    Saatli mosque
  • Chukhur mehelle mosque
    Chukhur mehelle mosque
  • Khoja Marjanli Mosque
    Khoja Marjanli Mosque
  • House-museum of Uzeyir Hajibeyov
    House-museum of Uzeyir Hajibeyov
  • House-museum and bust of Bulbul
    House-museum and bust of Bulbul
  • Khan's palace
    Khan's palace
  • Palace of poetess Natavan
    Palace of poetess Natavan
  • Palace of poetess Natavan, another facade
    Palace of poetess Natavan, another facade
  • House of artist Mir Mohsun Navvab
    House of artist Mir Mohsun Navvab
  • Tomb of poetess Natavan
    Tomb of poetess Natavan
  • Giyasli Mosque
    Giyasli Mosque
  • Bread Museum in Agdam
    Bread Museum in Agdam

Grandmaster 22:26, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Grandmaster, the problem is that we can't use Azeri news websites. We need third-party sources like BBC, Amnesty International and so on.Abutalub (talk) 10:47, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I’m getting tired of saying this, Grandmaster, but one can’t just synthesise and makes news article from available photography, that’s WP:OR and WP:SYNTH --Armatura (talk) 11:31, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We don't have to synthesize anything. There are plenty of sources on destruction of mosques in Shusha, for example, or the mosque in Agdam. And the photos illustrate their present condition. Here is a source about Agdam's mosque and bread museum: [15] Grandmaster 15:00, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Grandmaster, I can't enter rferl.org. Can you copy information about Agdam's mosque and bread museum here and I can use it in the article.Abutalub (talk) 20:28, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There are photos that show ruins, and caption under the bread museum says: A Soviet-era mural still stands amid the city ruins. The caption under mosque photo says: The neglected and damaged interior of Agdam's once-glorious mosque. Grandmaster 21:18, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This needs less allegations of partisanship and more discussion of the sources that are actually cited in the article: do they sustain the article in the light of WP:N, WP:RS and WP:NOR?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:16, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, but improve, with more third-party sources. Also, perhaps should be renamed to something more specific, e.g. "cultural heritage" instead of just "sites". All available evidence indicates that some damage to Azerbaijani cultural heritage has been made during the conflict. Brandmeistertalk 19:54, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Brandmeister, we should rename it just as in Israeli demolition of Palestinian property.Abutalub (talk) 20:51, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind. Brandmeistertalk 08:17, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment 9 items of the list are provided with third-party sources: Azerbaijani graves in Jabrayil, Agdam Mosque, Aghdam Bread Museum, Graves in the Martyr’s Alley in the Aghdam district, Grave and commemorative complex of Natavan Hurshudbani, Istisu resort, Mamar Mosque, Giyasly village Mosque, Azerbaijani religious monuments in Shusha (including Ashaghi Govhar Agha Mosque). I think this is enough for making article to exist.Abutalub (talk) 21:44, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article is just a bulk of POV text, it doesn't serve encycolpedic purposes. Violations of WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE, topped with WP:SOAPBOX claims. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 05:29, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Another source on Agdam:

Agdam​ was once a bustling centre for wine and agriculture and a thriving black market hub. Now it looks like a post-apocalypse movie set. The roads have been reclaimed by nature, and the few remaining patches of asphalt indicate where to find a path through thickets of shrubs and wild plants. Traces of its former elegance remain in the high arched windows of the public theatre or the destroyed façade of the city hall. Above the Muzei Khleba, the Soviet-era bread museum, its mosaic still showing a woman carrying a basket of grapes and a man in an astrakhan hat playing a lute, is the minaret of the 19th-century mosque – which, in an act of petty cultural revenge, was used as a barn after the city’s capture in the first war. Ghaith Abdul-Ahad. Each rock has two names: In Nagorno-Karabakh. London Review of Books, 17 June 2021 [16]

Grandmaster 09:13, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The topic itself is notable and certainly there was destruction of Azerbaijani sites. As it was suggested earlier, it would probably be better to have one article for all cultural monuments destroyed or damaged during the NK conflict. The article as is has major problems:
    • Many sources are questionable. "Third-party views" are often quoted from Azerbaijani media which raises concerns about the bias and reliability.
    • The scope is not clear. The title says "sites" which means that every damaged house falls under the scope of the article. In that case the format of list wouldn't work.
    • As is, it's mostly throwing things so that something sticks. The article mentions piles of hay in village mosque (which is bad!) but it's hardly an example of damage. Similarly, there are smashed graves in Kelbajar cemetery (which is also very bad!), but most likely they weren't cultural heritage objects.
Considering that the said problems affect most of the article I feel it would be better to delete, decide on scope and start anew, incorporating useful bits from the current article. Alaexis¿question? 11:51, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be better to change the title to the List of damaged Azerbaijani cultural heritage sites during the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, to narrow its scope and make it more precise. As for stacks or hay, the mosque was used as a barn. It is an insult to the religious feelings of Muslims, and therefore it is bad. But the mosque itself was plundered and damaged. Obviously, its interiors were not in that condition before Armenian forces took control of the area. Grandmaster 13:33, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Renaming it as you suggested is also an option. Then we'd have to review the list and see which items fall under the scope of the article and are reliably sourced.
If the Giyasli mosque was plundered, damaged and made into a barn then this is what should be said in the article. Now it's just said that Kommersant reporter found hay in it. This is just an example of the content being all over the place. Alaexis¿question? 16:19, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We obviously need better published sources. But there cannot be any reasonable doubt that Giyasly village Mosque is ruined. Photos taken by our fellow wikipedians speak for themselves. There is a video of it too: [17] Iranian-French photographer Reza Deghati took the pictures of its condition when it passed to Azerbaijani control: [18] And I agree, we need to go through the list and see, which ones are reliably confirmed as destroyed or damaged, and keep those, and remove the ones that cannot be considered to be cultural heritage or confirmed as damaged/destroyed. Grandmaster 16:50, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Probably we see the desired state of the article similarly in terms of the scope of the article and the acceptable sources. The question is whether we can get there quicker by removing irrelevant things or by starting anew. My feeling is that the latter would be easier for everyone but I'd be happy to be proven wrong. Alaexis¿question? 20:24, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. With all due respect, the article should be deleted, a new one should be created with an acceptable title and third party sources. Since the article also contains serious accusations that need to be confirmed in reliable sources, going through the WP:AFC will, in my opinion, be acceptable to all editors and is the best option for this issue. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 15:28, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but improve. I believe there are more third-party sources regarding the subject. The subject itself is very notable, without any doubts.--Nicat49 (talk) 00:34, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    How so, can you elaborate? ZaniGiovanni (talk) 05:53, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Things like destruction of holy and culutral sites in Shusha can be added to Battle of Shusha (1992) (same for any other reliably sourced content to similarly related articles). Regardless, I'm not seeing how this list meet WP:LISTN as many of these entries occurred in diffetent conflicts several years apart. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 22:09, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a legitimate and well sourced list, with clear inclusion criteria.My very best wishes (talk) 01:42, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No reasoning for ad-sounding "legitimate", "well sourced", "clear inclusion criteria" provided at all. --Armatura (talk) 17:13, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it does seem "pointy" as written. My very best wishes (talk) 19:07, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:31, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Germán Altamírano

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

Only had four fights with no achievements, failing NBOX. Before search returns nothing but stat sites, failing GNG. 2.O.Boxing 11:13, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. While additional sources were provided, even the editor who posted them realized that they did not suffice to, at the very least, merit !voting in favor of keeping the article. ✗plicit 13:44, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Register Forum

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

Fails WP:PRODUCT. References either don't work or seem to link to its own webpage. Imcdc (talk) 12:46, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Imcdc (talk) 12:46, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Imcdc (talk) 12:46, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Imcdc (talk) 12:46, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails the GNG and any pertinent notability criteria. For pity's sake, we don't accord notability absent sound third-party sources to a college student paper, let alone a high school paper. The article's claim that this is the oldest student newspaper in the country is not only unsourced, it's neither mentioned on its own or the school's website. No useful content to merge that's not already in the Cambridge Rindge & Latin article. Ravenswing 13:42, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I was able to find a number of sources; it's mentioned in conjunction with the reopening of the school in 1980,[1] and in 1981 as well.[2] There's also a 1980 article devoted entirely to the paper.[3] Who knows if this clears GNG; it seems kind of murky to me. There might be other sources as well (I only searched in Massachoochoo). jp×g 21:16, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Rindge reopens". The Boston Globe. Boston, Massachusetts. 1980-01-15. p. 28.
  2. ^ "Cambridge student aiming for the top". The Boston Globe. Boston, Massachusetts. 1981-01-20. p. 21.
  3. ^ "Student newspaper was rushed to print". The Boston Globe. Boston, Massachusetts. 1980-01-15. p. 17.
  • Only the last of those three refs could remotely be considered to qualify under the GNG, and it certainly falls short of WP:GEOSCOPE. The first two are fleeting mentions. The GNG requires that the subject receive "substantive coverage" for a source to qualify. Ravenswing 23:09, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm, I think you're right here; I will change from "weak keep" to a mere "comment". jp×g 02:32, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:37, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 09:36, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Editors find that the individual passes WP:NRU, with multiple appearances in the National Rugby Championship. (non-admin closure) — Mikehawk10 (talk) 07:17, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cody Walker (rugby union)

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

fails WP:NRU. He may have signed with the Waratahs but never actually played a game. According to WP:NRU A player who signs for a team in a fully professional rugby competition but has not played in any games is not deemed to have participated in a competition, and is therefore not generally regarded as being notable under these criteria. LibStar (talk) 04:01, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 04:08, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 04:08, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:33, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:14, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was draftify to Draft:Lucknow IPL Team. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 05:54, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lucknow IPL Team

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

Simply WP:TOOSOON to create this article. Nothing is known about the team except its owner and its location. Clog Wolf Howl 05:29, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Clog Wolf Howl 05:33, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Clog Wolf Howl 05:33, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Theoretically, the best thing to do would be to draftify it until the auction (or naming ceremony at least). But, practically, it will save everyone's time and effort if this is kept and linked prominently from both Indian Premier League and 2022 IPL, so we don't end up with 35 different articles under 35 different made-up placeholder names, and 35 AFD's or ATD revert-wars, not to mention 73 recreations. There's also Ahmedabad IPL Team, FYI. Probably best to apply whatever consensus this gets to that article too. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 06:17, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    And then I saw Lucknow United. Clog Wolf Howl 06:36, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would agree with Usedtobecool's rationale here (there's also an article for the other team that's being created under the same name). It's not that far in the future and if we don't give them these articles the children will simply create a zillion of them - this area of cricket is problematic in that regard I'm afraid. Blue Square Thing (talk) 07:20, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to draftspace WP:TOOSOON, but in 3-6 months, they will be notable. Don't need an article until they actually have an official name, team manager and some players, and they won't actually compete until ~April next year. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:55, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am also nominating the following related page for a recently created IPL team:
Ahmedabad IPL Team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Joseph2302 (talk) 08:31, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This Lucknow Team will be the part of Indian Premeir League 2022. In December (probably) there will be a mega-auction of cricket players. So by then we will know the exact team, coaches, captain and details about other support staff. [1] . In my view there is no harm in keeping the current page. LALAJI1234 (talk) 10:26, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The auction is usually held around February, which would be the correct time to start an article- when they actually have some players. Better to be in draftspace until then, as violates WP:TOOSOON. The fact that Wikipedia is rife with IPL fandom editors is not a valid reason for these to be in article space right now. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:28, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well I am not an IPL fan though. But according to a report in TOI the mega auction will be held in December 2021.[2] Sorry for OFFENDS. LALAJI1234 (talk) 10:32, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of the sources you've linked to confirm it will be in December 2021. Nevertheless, they shouldn't be created until either that time or a time when they have an official ceremony/announcement, like Rugbyfan22 suggested. Right now, all we know is 2 cities will have a team, whose name we don't even know. There is literally no benefit to having these articles until there is some useful content in them, which won't be for at least a few months (maybe 2 months if the super auction is in Dec 2021). Joseph2302 (talk) 10:40, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In accordance with what you suggest I think a page for the other team (Ahmedabad) has also been created. It must also be removed. As Board of Control for Cricket in India has not notified about the time of mega-auctions. Maybe, they will until the ongoing T20 world cup concludes , probably by mid-November. So its alright to remove the content. I support it. LALAJI1234 (talk) 10:47, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://cricfit.com/when-will-the-ipl-2022-mega-auction-takes-place/
  2. ^ https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/blogs/blockhole/ipl-mega-auction-who-will-be-retained/
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 10:51, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sajan Raj Kurup

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

Promotional unaccepted draft article moved from draft out of process- clearly written by the subject themselves.

I am unsure if notability is possible but it should not have been removed from draft at this point. DGG ( talk ) 05:22, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:04, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yamato Drum and Bugle Corps

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

No evidence of notability, no substantive independent sources found, no evidence of placement in national competition. Contested PROD. Acroterion (talk) 01:14, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Acroterion (talk) 01:14, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Acroterion (talk) 01:14, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Acroterion (talk) 01:14, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:53, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Curbon7 (talk) 05:11, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:48, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

G. Philip Stephenson

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

Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources, either those in the article or elsewhere online - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:GNG. Run-of-the-mill businessman. Promotional article, created by a likely WP:SPA. Edwardx (talk) 20:10, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:15, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:15, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edwardx (talk) 20:10, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Edward, you mentioned this: "Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources, either those in the article or elsewhere online." A google search for Philip Stephenson would produce independent coverage results. There is another Philip Stephenson on Wikipedia, which is an entry for a contemporary baseball player, hence the differentiator was needed by adding the "G." initial. There are several articles linked on the Wikipedia page from reputable, independent sources, such as the Washington Post, the New York Times, the Financial Times, etc., as well as links to prestigious organizations, such as National Geographic Society and Ocean Exploration Trust where the subject serves as a board member, advisor, and/or donor. Many other philanthropists have wikipedia pages (i.e. Ted Waitt, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Waitt; Michael Bloomberg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Bloomberg and many others). This one too is factual, accurate and sourced according to guidelines. When it first accepted the entry several years ago, Wikipedia said this: "This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people." Should you feel that more or different links and sources need to be included please suggest appropriate edits or additions that you as an independent Wiki editor see as necessary. Deleting the page serves no purpose as it does not violate any terms of use. Would you please consider withdrawing your Afd?

Thank you. Ebabau (talk) 20:59, 18 October 2021 (UTC) Thank you, Ebabau. All of this will be evaluated during the course of at least one week. One thing that does concern me is that you appear to have a conflict of interest. The only articles that you have been involved with are G. Philip Stephenson and Petit Saint Vincent, an island of which Stephenson is the majority owner. Can I suggest that you read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, and consider making a declaration? I have left a message below accordingly. Edwardx (talk) 11:18, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Edwardx. I see and appreciate your suggestions and the keen interest you have in this topic. I am not affiliated with the Petit Saint Vincent resort and have no input in promoting it. I am, however, involved in nonprofit marine conservation work, namely coral restoration and marine protected areas in the Eastern Caribbean. As such, the perceived COI you mention is rather cause-related and not determined by a particular place or person. All the information in the entry is factual, sourced from reputable publications, neutral and not intended to promote any particular subject, and meets Wikipedia's core content policies WP:COPO and WP:CCPOL of Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV) Verifiability (WP:V) and No original research (WP:NOR). To avoid any appearance of impropriety, I will follow your advice and include a "connected contributor" disclosure to the article, since my core interest and connection to the topic is related to nonprofit environmental conservation work. Ebabau (talk) 17:18, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Hello Edwardx. Following your advice and the guidelines you kindly shared, I added this declaration to the page in question: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:G._Philip_Stephenson#Connected_Contributor_COI_declaration Hopefully, this clarifies the connection and satisfies the question. Please let me know if you have any other suggestions and thank you once again for your keen interest. I am not as well versed as you are on Wikipedia editing, nor do I have the time to allocate to being an editor. Most of my time is spent underwater and working with NGOs and local communities to try to save and restore what is still possible to save of our degrading marine environment. Cheers Ebabau (talk) 17:59, 19 October 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ebabau (talk • contribs) Ebabau (talk) 18:44, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV based on the sources in the article. Not sure how the nominator can make the claim that these aren't significant. He is the primary subject of The Washington Post article which covers his work with the Rompetrol petroleum company and the subsequent criminal investigation of the company in which Stephenson was involved. There's actually quite a lot of criticism of him and his company in the TWP article which could be used to expand the article. I would imagine he would have been the subject of press articles in Romanian given the high profile nature of the criminal charges being lobbied at Stephenson and his company. Likewise he is the primary subject of the Houston Chronicle piece for his work as a restaurateur. I would consider both of these independent significant coverage of the subject. The rest is mostly trivial coverage (i.e. passing mentions) but altogether I think collectively it leans to the keep side.4meter4 (talk) 02:26, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Curbon7 (talk) 05:08, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - After reviewing the sources, he appears to meet general notability guidelines, and thus the article should not be deleted. Fieari (talk) 07:11, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WaPo and Houston Chronicle coverage in addition to other smaller mentions are enough to meet WP:BASIC. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:06, 3 November 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 Crown Holdings. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:47, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Signode

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

Non-notable corporation. Prior redirect to Illinois Tool Works is no longer valid as the company has been sold to Crown Holdings. Redirect to Crown Holdings doesn't seem worthwhile, since Signode forms an apparently small part of Crown's business. No indication that the corporation is notable enough for its own article. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:54, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:54, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:54, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Signode Steel Strapping Co., est. 1913". madeinchicagomuseum.com. Retrieved 7 October 2021.
  2. ^ "Signode". Forbes.com. Retrieved 7 October 2021.
  3. ^ Noyes, T.E. (1985). "The evolution of strategic planning at Signode". Planning Review. 13 (5): 10–12. Retrieved 7 October 2021.
  4. ^ Tampa Bay Economic Development Council. "Signode, the Transit Packaging Division of Crown Holdings, Inc., is relocating its corporate headquarters to Tampa, FL". tampabayedc.com.
  5. ^ Brezina-Smith, Veronica. "$2B Chicago area transit packaging group will relocate HQ to Tampa, bringing 200 jobs with it". Tampa Bay Business Journal. Retrieved 7 October 2021.
  • Comment The cited references do not establish notability.
    1. This page, from the Made in Chicago Museum, is a single entry posted by a little-known local museum that celebrates manufacturing in Chicago.
    2. This page from Forbes.com, is merely a listing indicating that the business exists.
    3. This article in the journal Planning Review might be of interest if it weren't written by an executive at Signode.
    4. This is a press release.
    5. This is merely an announcement of the business opening operations in Tampa Bay.
None of these citations actually does anything to denote that Signode is a notable company. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 17:04, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:19, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Curbon7 (talk) 05:05, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 05:58, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kym Campbell

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

Originally a music bio, but was re-written in 2019 to reflect her work as an online health coach.

Falls short of meeting WP:SINGER, and there is little coverage of her current work from reliable sources. KH-1 (talk) 05:23, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. KH-1 (talk) 05:23, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:03, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:29, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - sources cited are blatantly non-RS, subject appears non-notable. - Scarpy (talk) 19:40, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Changing vote. I believe she's notable as a singer-songwriter (thanks shaidar cuebiyar), none of her fertility coaching has good sourcing and I removed it from the article. - Scarpy (talk) 08:12, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agree that the sources are unreliable, mostly podcasts, about a fad diet. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 18:48, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a singer-songwriter the artist issued three albums (2 EPs, 1 full-length) and toured Australia at least three times. I've added a Music career section with sources. Passes WP:MUSICBIO#1, #4.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 20:35, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would encourage everyone to take a closer look at the references. MUSICBIO #1 states that the person should be subject to "multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself." (emphasis added). I don't think that these sources rise up to that standard. Ref #1: passing mention, Ref #4 appears to be a surfboard review blog (not WP:RS). Now, I'm not familiar the Australian music scene but it's debatable whether "The Brag" and "Buzz Magazine" are reputable sources either.-KH-1 (talk) 00:15, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
User:KH-1 if you turn the knobs for the operational definition thresholds of “multiple” and “nontrivial” you can make a lot of Wikipedia articles appear or disappear. My definition of multiple follows the dictionary, meaning more than one. I think something is non-trival if it gives more context than a directory, for example more context than what you would get from looking something up in the yellow pages. If there are two such cases of that, then I call it notable. Some people turn the multiple and nontrivial knobs higher, but I believe that’s persuasive redefinition. You could say “well, there’s only three books from university publishers on this topic, so that’s just barely notable” and the argument is still the same, it’s just using the vagaries of English to interpret the threshold in a different way. So the only rational approach to me seems to define them in the most bedrock parsimonious way. Which also has the advantage of being the least ambiguous. Everything else is just a “my higher threshold is better than your lower threshold for reasons.” Which is fine, but at that point it’s just a subjective “how high is up?” 3rd grade debate masquerading as very serious people having a very serious discussion. - Scarpy (talk) 07:23, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's all relative anyways, but my interpretation happens to be correct because I follow the dictionary definition. It's not saying much at all. Also, you've side-stepped by main concern, which is whether the sources are both SIGCOV and WP:RS.-KH-1 (talk) 06:23, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
nontrivial is exactly what significant coverage is about, and you'll find I mentioned in three times in my response to you. Try reading it like Gary Alford would. - Scarpy (talk) 06:37, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Curbon7 (talk) 05:04, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment User:KH-1 I dispute your contentions that mentions of the artist are trivial or sources used are not reliable. You admit lack of familiarity with Australian music scene. FYI, The Brag is a "national online publisher with a history spanning two decades, which was formerly published by Furst Media." (2007) (see here), while Buzz Magazine Australia was established in 1993 in Melbourne (see here). I believe both are independent of the artist, have editorial review, have existed for over ten years and hence are reliable sources.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 03:43, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Non-notable. Fails WP:SIGCOV. Those references are non-references. They are junk. scope_creepTalk 15:58, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:15, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Formal differential geometry

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

Sub-stub that doesn't demonstrate notability or even define the topic. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 03:06, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 03:06, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Borderline A1 as it stands. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:24, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Israel Gelfand or weak delete. A Google Scholar search turns up a handful of authors mentioning "formal differential geometry" and explicitly linking it to Gelfand, but I (A) can hardly understand a word in them, (B) can't see folks discussing it in any depth (they basically cite it and move on), and (C) don't see it appearing in any textbooks on Google Books like you might expect for a notable piece of mathematics. So I think someone with more math chops could expand this article a bit, but I don't see much to suggest this would meet WP:GNG. Ajpolino (talk) 18:44, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Curbon7 (talk) 05:02, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete no substantial content as it stands, if nobody is interested in expanding the article i don't see a reason to keep it. jraimbau (talk) 12:25, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Ecosystem#Definition. ✗plicit 11:13, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Biotic component

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

Here is the entirety of what the single source used says:

"A biotic factor is a living organism that shapes its environment. In a freshwater ecosystem, examples might include aquatic plants, fish, amphibians, and algae. Biotic and abiotic factors work together to create a unique ecosystem."

That's it. It's just a heading for a curated collection of National Geographic articles. There is no depth to the coverage of the subject, you've already read everything. This would therefore seem not to be a notable subject, and the article as written is mostly original research. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:49, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:49, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:32, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:32, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:24, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Amazing that such a useless article has been up for so long, for most of the time with no citation at all, not even the one that Beeblebrox quoted above in full. Athel cb (talk) 09:10, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Biotic_stress which is a reasonable article about a term that's far more commonly used (and contrasts with Abiotic_stress) Elemimele (talk) 15:14, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Ecosystem#Definition? Delete as a close second choice. After looking around, I think this is not an encyclopedic topic. The most we could host here is a definition (which of course, we shouldn't per WP:NOTDIC). The only benefit of a redirect is it would make the context clear to anyone who happens to search for the term. Ajpolino (talk) 17:32, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is there consensus for a redirect target?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Curbon7 (talk) 04:57, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to Glossary of medicine. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:32, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Basal (medicine)

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

I can't find any sources that discuss this topic that we could use to expand this article beyond a dictionary definition. Basal in medicine is just a word that means what it means. I can't think of a reasonable redirect target either (any ideas?). Propose deletion per WP:NOTDIC. Ajpolino (talk) 04:28, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:19, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Bzeek

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

BLP1E. EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 23:30, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Very Weak Delete - It breaks my heart, as this seems to be a very worthy individual with multiple news articles about him, but it does appear to meet the WP:BLP1E removal criteria. I am eagerly willing to change my vote to keep if someone can argue that this person is not notable solely for a single small event. Pinging User:Cupcake-Yum... I know he has multiple articles and sources, but can you argue that he isn't described by WP:BLP1E? Fieari (talk) 00:13, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I need more than a repeated assertion that he's notable. Please explain how he does not fit the criteria of WP:BLP1E. Fieari (talk) 04:30, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Libya-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:16, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:16, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 02:32, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:38, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Sorry. There are only three references; none of them are Reliable Sources, and in each case their only source of information appears to be Bzeek himself. The timeline given is contradictory: did he start taking in these kids after he was diagnosed with colon cancer in 2016, or has he been taking them in for 30 years? Is there really a "Turkey’s International Benevolence Award"? A Google search for it turns up nothing except these articles. Maybe they meant an award from the “Turkiye Diyanet Foundation” - which does not appear to be especially notable and in any case I could find no independent confirmation that he got an award from them. Look, if everything in the article is true he’s a wonderful human being, but basically nothing is confirmed. WP:Verifiability is paramount here. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:20, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The creator of the article, Santiago-48, is the same person as Cupcake-Yum, and both have been blocked for socking.[19] -- MelanieN (talk) 14:14, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:00, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Four Corners, Wyoming

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

I highly doubt this is a community, but instead a named intersection where a church and maybe a store may have been at some point. Coordinates quite literally lead me to an intersection between two state highways and a "Four Corners Church" which a Google review describes as being abandoned (https://i.imgur.com/2Ldf2Da.png). There seem to be results on newspapers.com but I can't see them in full because I haven't submitted a TWL request yet. wizzito | say hello! 00:12, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. wizzito | say hello! 00:12, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wyoming-related deletion discussions. wizzito | say hello! 00:12, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Surprisingly, leaning keep since it does have a post office. I think the Imgur statement is inaccurate, but in any case it does look like a tiny town from the road. My hesitancy is that I can find no text sources of any substance; I could not source any of the current article text. Mangoe (talk) 02:39, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 02:59, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Google satellite view shows that Four Corners is populated. Contrary to nom, it appears to be more than just an intersection where things used to exist. It's sparsely populated, but so is everything in Wyoming. I see no reason to delete. Fieari (talk) 07:27, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems to be a community and a notable place. --Doncram (talk) 02:26, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • P.S. Note the first hit in the Google books search above, is this usage in a tourist book "Exploring the Black Hills and Badlands": Beaver Creek Cross-Country Ski Trails has "General location: Four miles east of Four Corners, Wyoming. / Access: From Lead, SD, drive 34 miles southwest on U.S. 85 to Four Corners, Wyoming. Drive 4.7 miles east...." And I bet there would lots more hits if the search did not require the exact string "Four Corners, Wyoming", but rather searched for "Four Corners" Wyoming. --Doncram (talk) 02:31, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm seeing a decent amount in the archives, such as this and [20]. This woman was born here. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 00:35, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This one is about a different Four Corners. –dlthewave ☎ 03:27, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:14, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Lab with Leo Laporte

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

Does not pass WP:GNG. I couldn't find any in depth sources and could only verify that WP:ITEXISTS. The show does not WP:INHERIT notability from it's hosts, guests, or producers. Leo Laporte is a potential redirect target. TipsyElephant (talk) 02:53, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 02:53, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 02:53, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 02:53, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no real evidence of notability, never has had any. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:57, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Once upon a time, our inclusion standards for television programming essentially guaranteed an automatic notability freebie to every television series so long as it was possible to offer technical verification that it existed. But the rules have long since been tightened up, and television series now require evidence of significance, such as notable television awards and/or substantial reliable source coverage about their significance in sources independent of their own self-published web presence. Nothing like that is shown here, and the four footnotes comprise two primary sources, two blogs and absolutely zero sources that would count for anything toward getting this over the notability hump — and even on a ProQuest search for in-its-own-time coverage that wouldn't Google well, all I get is a small handful of glancing namechecks of its existence in coverage of other things, and no useful sources that could actually be added to salvage this. Bearcat (talk) 15:36, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment sad to see this one go, I remember it fondly. Could be merged to main Leo Laporte article. Oaktree b (talk) 23:31, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:45, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! Douglas

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

I can't see any notability for this person عائشة المقدسي (talk) 14:56, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. عائشة المقدسي (talk) 14:56, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. ~StyyxTalk? ^-^ 15:01, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:36, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:GNG. Main claim to fame seems to be high YouTube views, which isn't valid in the realm of Wikipedia notability discussions. Sergecross73 msg me 17:50, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Sergecross73: are you sure? please check out the article once again. RegardsMisasory (talk) 09:06, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am. Your additions don't really move the dial at all. You'd want to find something like coverage from music publications at WP:RSMUSIC or charting on something from WP:GOODCHARTS. Sergecross73 msg me 12:26, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete A less than notable DJ. Fails WP:N. Ode+Joy (talk) 21:46, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the article was written in poor quality. I updated the article and added more sources. Misasory (talk) 09:09, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Misasory He may meet notability via WP:MUSICBIO if he has charting tracks in Turkey or radio airplay in national radio. Any evidence of these? Peter303x (talk) 17:21, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to evaluate new sources more thoroughly and to determine if any evidence exists that the subject could meet WP:MUSICBIO
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:43, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:32, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to WayV#Members. ✗plicit 11:04, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hendery

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

Fails to meet WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. All of the source included in the article is about his activities with the group NCT/WayV, showing lack of individual independent notability. Article was also moved back to draft twice, however, for reasons unknown, the draft was accepted after the first draftify despite failing to show individual independent notability. In addition, the accepted revision 1042003833 was also filled with bunch of unreliable sources with zero editorial oversight, and also trivias such as with Instagram followers that is only supported by primary source.

Imo, this article should be redirect back to draftspace. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 01:51, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The article just needs more work. Hendery did indeed have activities outside WAYV and thus independent notability, as Hendery has started in various Chinese variety shows such as Happy Camp (TV series) . He is quite a notable and popular figure in Macau, Hong Kong and Guangdong–Hong Kong–Macau Greater Bay Area and this can be backed up with reliable sources. Furthermore, Meets #7 of WP:MUS Wikipedia:Notability (music): Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city (in this case, Macau); and moreover the subject still meets all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability, while meeting notability (music). Another aspect to take into consideration with respect to the question of notability is popularity and fame, including social media popularity. It is important to note that on his birthday, Hendery was trending worldwide #1 on top social media platforms such as Twitter and Weibo. Hendery is also the most followed individuals from Macau on many social media platforms such as Instagram (more than 5 million followers), Weibo, and Twitter (1 of the 2 administrative regions of China alongside Hong Kong). He meets independent notability as he also been known to face controversy - he faced a cultural appropriation scandal which was discussed a lot on social media and Kpop Twitter. The random trivial trivias have since been removed from his page Yeungkahchun (talk) 01:59, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - no evidence of individual notability as a musician. And no evidence of "prominent of the local scene of a city" in this article either. Where is their significant coverage in social media influence? Evaders99 (talk) 03:15, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect/delete - I'm following the group, and his only solo work notable enough to be included will be his cast appearance on the upcoming show How Become a Family.[1] But it's not even aired yet, and other contents are either group activities or have unreliable source. Yolo4A4Lo (talk) 04:46, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Members of THE BOYZ, WayV and AB6IX to star in new variety show". NME. 27 August 2021. Retrieved 26 October 2021.
  • Merge/redirect to WayV#Members per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives for deletion. I searched for sources about Wong Kun-hang (Chinese: 黃冠亨; born 28 September 1999), known by the mononym Hendery (Korean: 헨드리), and was unable to find significant coverage about him.

    All of the coverage about him is in relation to his membership in the South Korean boy group NCT and its Chinese subunit WayV.

    I will support a standalone article if editors can provide at least two reliable sources that provide significant coverage of him where the coverage is not focused his activities for NCT and WayV.

    Cunard (talk) 00:36, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 11:00, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gobindapur Sephali Memorial Polytechnic

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

No significant coverage per WP:ORG. SL93 (talk) 01:13, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was weak keep. Consensus to keep the article is based on the potential for the article to easily meet WP:GNG due to significant relations occurring between Brunei and Spain that should provide good source material. (non-admin closure) ––FormalDude talk 03:47, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Brunei–Spain relations

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

Fails WP:GNG. 3 of the 4 sources are primary sources. No resident embassies, there is nothing to these relations except diplomatic recognition. LibStar (talk) 23:40, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is not true! It exists more relations than simply recognition. Please, stop destroying my work, thansk.--Fobos92 (talk) 01:55, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:EFFORT isn't a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 01:58, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 23:55, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brunei-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 23:55, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 23:55, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Extremely weak keep because Spain invaded Brunei in 1578; see Castilian War. Not all bilateral relations are notable; the fact that these two countries fought a war in the 16th century, which is not even mentioned in this article, is about the only thing that would encourage me to support the article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:38, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: While I agree with Metropolitan90 that the war gives at least some justification for keeping, the fact that these two nations have had otherwise little interactions definitely stretches the definition; it would only be repeating what is already said at Castilian War and little else. Curbon7 (talk) 05:16, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not seeing any significant coverage of this topic in independent, reliable sources. Topic is not notable. Yilloslime (talk) 18:16, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep diplomatic relations evolve and rather than delete articles, it is best to improve them. Aquintero82 (talk) 17:16, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't addressed how this article meets notability guidelines. LibStar (talk) 00:23, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 🌀Locomotive207-talk🌀 00:53, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The 16th century war means that there have been relations between these two countries that were notable. Even if it's not recent, someone may be looking for incidents that occurred between these two nations, and would decide to start from the page for relations between the two countries. (JayPlaysStuff | talk to me | What I've been up to) 00:57, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: the existence of the article establishes the baeses for its improvement and expansion of information. There are economic, diplomatic and historical relationships that justify keeping the page. If it is not maintained, then it will be more difficult for the data expansion to happen.--Fobos92 (talk) 21:28, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as there have been important relations between the countries.Jackattack1597 (talk) 21:33, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:03, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

VT Hunt

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

Subject does not meet WP:EVENT, specifically WP:DIVERSE and relatedly WP:RS. Sources include 1 independent news source (the Collegiate Times), several Reddit posts apparently associated with the event organisers (u/vthuntoverseer, i.e. primary source), the event website (a primary source), and a now-404ed article on a general event bulletin run by Virginia Tech. The article's original author also indicates apparent WP:CONFLICT ("Rekam eulC", who is "the (host organization) Septagram Society's figurehead" according to the article itself) Notecharlie (talk) 00:44, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to Nationals Park#2021 shooting. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:46, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nationals Park shooting

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

Active shooter scares are WP:NOTNEWS, and in this case, the article was clearly created too quickly. No deaths or substantial amount of injuries, an incident contained to a personal squabble, and an instant drop in national media coverage after a day or two equal no WP:LASTING qualifications for an article. Love of Corey (talk) 00:17, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So is this a keep!vote or a delete!vote? Love of Corey (talk) 03:01, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nether. It is me musing. Lightburst (talk) 17:27, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, okay. Love of Corey (talk) 03:04, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No deaths, no lasting significance. WWGB (talk) 01:58, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Still a horrible event and the article is well-written, but unfortunately this just isn't a noteworthy-enough event to warrant an article on Wikipedia. Waddles 🗩 🖉 02:11, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge a succinct summary into the Nationals Park article. There is an existing section there titled "2021 shooting", but lacks detail. That the event caused an MLB game to be suspended is worthy of being noted in the history of the ballpark. Dmoore5556 (talk) 02:49, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect The article is already so "succinct" that you could just copy and paste most of it into the main article. Mlb96 (talk) 04:51, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Nationals Park#2021 shooting. Not notable enough for its own article, but enough of an unusual incident be mentioned in the article about the park. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:13, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2021_October_26&oldid=1053802001"