Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 January 20

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< January 19	January 21 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:38, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kelvin Momo

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

Subject hasn’t gained significant coverage in reliable sources to satisfy WP:NMUSIC. A case of WP:TOOSOON Xclusivzik (talk) 17:04, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:13, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:13, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:48, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we lack adequate sourcing to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:00, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify or delete - indeed likely WP:TOOSOON, and agree the notability is perhaps not yet up to scratch. The moziak.africa source on the page looks good, but could find nothing to suggest it's a reliable source - it's used perhaps 3 times on the whole of WP. Chumpih ^t 17:31, 24 January 2022 (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 03:16, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Leonese Language Day

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

Too complicated for PROD. While I found a proclamation, and a blog referenced in this book, I am unable to find coverage of this day beyond Wiki mirrors and don't think it garnered any significance. It's unclear whether it even still exists. I was going to redirect it to Leonese dialect, however it's not mentioned there and there's nothing to indicate it warrants a merger/mention. Star Mississippi 18:31, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 18:31, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 18:31, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:36, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:47, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it doesn't appear to have any SIGCOV. – DarkGlow • 18:12, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Per WP:SOFTDELETE, I'm happy to restore this at any time upon request if someone finds sources to support an article. Ajpolino (talk) 03:52, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Texas National Security Review

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

Article PRODed with reason "Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." Article dePRODed with reason "Notable and a stub - leave longer, should be ." (sic). MIAR confirms that this journal is nowhere indexed. PROD reason stands, hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 16:24, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 16:24, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 16:24, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:27, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:44, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The subject is clearly established and well-known in academic and governmental realms, with some of its journal content re-published in top-tier scholarly sources ([4], [5], [6], [7], [8]). There is even very few reliable, independent sources that mention the subject from a news/editorial context, including this one: [9]. The fact that one user pointed to no indexation in selective databases suggests it may be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Weak Delete. Multi7001 (talk) 00:01, 21 January 2022 (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 Dyscalculia. If anyone wishes to add content on this secondary meaning to Dyscalculia, they're more than welcome, I've left the page history visible. Ajpolino (talk) 03:59, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Updating the close to delete per User_talk:Ajpolino#Redirect_at_Ageometresia and WP:IAR with the hope that this can save us the time of a pointless re-discussion. In short, I think I closed this without fully understanding the situation. Had I done my homework more appropriately, I would have seen that "ageometresia" is never used to mean "dyscalculia", and a redirect is therefore inappropriate. Ajpolino (talk) 17:50, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ageometresia

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

This article is about the word, and seems to me to be contrary to WP:NOT#DICTIONARY. The concept of ageometresia as a form of discalculia may merit an entry, but that is not what the current page is about. There had been attempts to transwiki it to Wiktionary, but it was not wanted there. Felix QW (talk) 15:59, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Felix QW (talk) 15:59, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for soft deletion due to previous WP:PROD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 21:55, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge to Dyscalculia - Per WP:ATD, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." Per WP:BEFORE, "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD." Additional discussion at WP:RUBBISH. That said, it seems like there's a few things going on here. First, why isn't the article titled "ageometria"? Second, does "ageometria" meet WP:GNG? From my quick scan of sources, it seems to. Third, should this just be a part of the Dyscalculia article? My opinion is "probably"; no reason this topic couldn't be a paragraph in that article, since it seems the two are often discussed together in secondary sources. Suriname0 (talk) 22:18, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at this closer, I'm less sure that the subject meets GNG; looks like the article may have triggered some cytogenesis that seeped its way into some conference proceedings. Pinging @David Eppstein:, who functionally wrote the article's content, to take a modern look. Suriname0 (talk) 23:18, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I put a notice on the talk pages of the WikiProjects interested in Dyscalculia; maybe we get some broader input from there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Felix QW (talk • contribs) 23:08, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:31, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:43, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nominator--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:23, 24 January 2022 (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 Engineering design process. Redirecting as a softer alternative to deletion. I've left the page history visible, but it looks like the relevant content has already been duplicated at Roel Wieringa. Thanks all for your comments. Ajpolino (talk) 04:07, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Engineering cycle

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG- the phrase "engineering cycle" lacks coverage in independent sources. MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:36, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:39, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

thanks for the attention.

The Engineering cycle is one of the most common methodologies for engineering design, especially in IT.

The concept is related to the Engineering design process (I will make a link from there as well, btw).

I mean, "engineering design process" is... a kind of area, or discipline, right?... While the Engineering Cycle is a clear and proven methodology.

I was surprised that the page was missing, that's why I created it.

Wieringa's books and journal articles on engineering design, and his Engineering Cycle methodology, have 13k citations on google scholar.

Google scholar returns 3890 articles for "Engineering Cycle" - https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=%22Engineering+Cycle%22&btnG=.

Some related versions and other links:

https://2021.igem.org/Engineering/Introduction

https://rampages.us/early-engineers/engineering-design-cycle/

https://blog.kidsparkeducation.org/blog/how-to-use-the-engineering-design-cycle-in-stem-activities-for-kids

https://www.igi-global.com/dictionary/engineering-design-cycle/47285

I added these as well to the wikipedia article.

Thanks in advance for your advice on how to write more relevant articles. Stemrv (talk) 11:45, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this seems to just be a common, pre-existing, engineering design process [10][11] that Wieringa has given an equally common name to. There is insufficient secondary coverage of Wieringa’s “engineering cycle” to warrant it having an article. Additionally, most of this article and all of its secondary references are about design science and technology readiness levels. SailingInABathTub (talk) 16:41, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:42, 20 January 2022 (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 2022 AFC U-17 Women's Asian Cup. Apparently uncontroversial. Not a likely search term, but will leave as redirect to keep page history visible. Ajpolino (talk) 05:20, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2022 AFC U-17 Women's Asian Cup qualification

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

this was a cancelled competition as qualifiers for the 2022 AFC U-17 Women's Asian Cup, where all of the relevant information about the qualification process is already in the 2022 AFC U-17 Women's Asian Cup article, and therefore there is no need for a daughter article on the qualification Matilda Maniac (talk) 07:26, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:41, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:41, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:41, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:09, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:17, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to parent article 2022 AFC U-17 Women's Asian Cup. Giant Snowman 17:37, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 23:00, 20 January 2022 (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 2022 AFC U-20 Women's Asian Cup. Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2022 AFC U-17 Women's Asian Cup qualification Ajpolino (talk) 05:21, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2022 AFC U-20 Women's Asian Cup qualification

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

this was a cancelled competition as qualifiers for the 2022 AFC U-20 Women's Asian Cup, where all of the relevant information about the qualification process is already in the 2022 AFC U-20 Women's Asian Cup article, and therefore there is no need for a daughter article on the qualification. Matilda Maniac (talk) 07:36, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:41, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:41, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:41, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:08, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:17, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to parent article 2022 AFC U-20 Women's Asian Cup. Giant Snowman 17:37, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 23:00, 20 January 2022 (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.

Return YouTube Dislike

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 per WP:SNOW and the fact that the creator of the article, user:tzarN64, already redirected it anyway. (If you're an admin and I did something wrong by closing this, feel free to revert.) (non-admin closure) casualdejekyll (talk) 21:54, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Could find no indication whatsoever through WP:BEFORE that this subject meets notability criteria. The absolute most I can find is this article from PCMag. The idea of WP:DRAFTIFYing this was brought up at the Teahouse, but – when substantial, reliable, independent coverage consists of one article – to what end? I believe this should be a redirect to YouTube#Consolidation_and controversy_(2019–present), wherein we could add one sentence about it. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 22:33, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:05, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:06, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:06, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:07, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to YouTube#Consolidation_and controversy_(2019–present) per nomination. I would say the notability of the extension is WP:TOOSOON. – The Grid (talk) 00:26, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Redirecting to YouTube#Consolidation_and controversy_(2019–present) is a good option for it. VincentGod11 (talk) 08:44, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. MaghrebiFalafel (talk) 15:32, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. As the user who tagged it for deletion under A7, I can say that this page's subject is not sufficiently notable for its own article. It just seems to be one of many random chrome extensions. This page's title seems plausible enough for a redirect to me. EDM fan 2 (talk) 16:00, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Egsan Bacon (talk) 21:25, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. Severe storm 28 23:00, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nomination. Mann Mann (talk) 07:10, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Disney Channel original films#Disney Channel Original Movies. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:37, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Life Is Ruff

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

Couldn't find any good sources. – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 11:54, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:10, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:10, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is a review at Common Sense Media (which is a Reliable Source) [12] DonaldD23 talk to me 12:46, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Disney Channel original films#Disney Channel Original Movies. I was a little surprised to not find enough coverage for this movie to meet WP:NFILM but other than the Common Sense Media review linked above I couldn't find anything in my WP:BEFORE. It's a plausible search term however so I think it should be redirected somewhere. Also plausible to redirect to Kyle Massey#Filmography but I think the table in the Disney Channel movies table has more relevant info. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 14:46, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 22:06, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Disney Channel original films#Disney Channel Original Movies. Pahiy (talk) 17:04, 22 January 2022 (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 23:43, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Barren sign

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

There is no need for a page on this astrology wah-wah (and even less for what is basically a WP:NOTDICTIONARY definition of astrology wah-wah). The only sources are from, naturally, astrology proponents (or historical ones, at that); and this is not the kind of detail that would go in a mainstream encyclopedia. Fails WP:NOT and WP:GNG (due to the sources for this not being independent). I've considered a merge, but there's nothing here that is worthy of being merged, even to Astrological sign (where the simple summary that "According to astrology, celestial phenomena relate to human activity" is plenty enough). Hence, delete RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:58, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astrology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:08, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, because Mercury is retrograde. Skyerise (talk) 02:30, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, there's no there there. PianoDan (talk) 18:18, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It might be possible to have an encyclopedic treatment of the various attributes that different astrologers have assigned to different signs over the centuries, but this is not the way to do it. XOR'easter (talk) 21:35, 24 January 2022 (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) 19:33, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle A. Valentine

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

Neither the author nor any of the books are notable. There are no references and extensive searches with Google, and newspapers.com have failed to turn up any reliable sources. Leschnei (talk) 21:07, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Leschnei (talk) 21:07, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:13, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:13, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. The article hasn't a single ref and there's no proof this person pass WP:N, WP:AUTHOR or any other notability criteria. Kacamata! ^Dimmi!!! 21:51, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not meant to be a lightly annotated guide to the internet, which is what we become when we had articles sourced only to the webpage of the subject.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:35, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. No RS at all.Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:57, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This author clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. The article has not a single reference or secondary source to it. Juggyevil (talk) 14:05, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly fails WP:GNG MaskedSinger (talk) 13:47, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NOTCATALOG. Fails GNG & NBIO. Platonk (talk) 23:36, 26 January 2022 (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. (non-admin closure) Vaco98 (talk) 01:53, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vietnamese Immigration to Mexico

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

Sophisticated vandalism or hoax. While the topic looks reasonable and its content looks ordinary, the sources given do not touch on the subject and the photo used is blatantly ripped from [13] and has a blatantly false description. A spot check of the creator's edits in other similar articles show a similar pattern of abuse. DHN (talk) 20:38, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:46, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:46, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:46, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Per WP:CSD#G5, this article was created in violation of a block, and the article has no substantial contributions from other editors. Mz7 (talk) 20:59, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Salvatore Rich

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

completely and utterly non-notable vanity spam created by an xwiki vanity spam sock. SANTADICAE🎅 19:36, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:48, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:48, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Vanispamcruft. Mccapra (talk) 21:30, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — non notable as they lack in-depth significant coverage in secondary reliable sources independent of them. Celestina007 (talk) 03:16, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wow, this is really a poorly written article. And it is nonsensical. Seems like this piece of junk could have been speedied. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:41, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. spam--Ts12rAc^{talk to me} 15:45, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG, lacks in-depth coverageJuggyevil (talk) 19:31, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The merge/redirect comment seems to be arguing under a misapprehension so I've disregarded it. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:34, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lucius Vibullius Rufus (son-in-law of Herodes Atticus)

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

WP:INVALIDBIO, nothing is really known about this person specifically, and the article is just a restatement of the family tree. Already mentioned in relatives' articles with no loss of information. Prod removed without explanation. Avilich (talk) 19:33, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:48, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete having a bunch of relatives who were notable does not make one notable. Wikipedia is not a generalogical dictionary where we have articles just to make the relations between other notable people clear.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:15, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability is not inherited. BBQboffin (talk) 02:39, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
merge/redirect -- Archon of Athens does not seem to have been an important enough post for every holder of whom we know to have an article. This subject was not even archon and the article has nothing but genealogical information. I thus consider the subject a NN person, but we might redirect to a more notable relative, probably Herodes Atticus. It is my understanding that at this period Athens was a mere provincial town (civitas) within Achaia (Roman province), whose capital was Corinth. The archon was thus merely similar to a county magistrate. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:11, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment is confusing. This is a different person than Lucius Vibullius Rufus, the archon, and so the archonship has nothing to do with this, but you're bringing it up anyay? The subject of the nomination was not an archon: seems to me it could be straight up deleted without further ado. Avilich (talk) 21:52, 26 January 2022 (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) 19:58, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of high schools in Chlef Province

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

This is a follow up to the AfD WP:Articles for deletion/List of high schools in Alto Paraná, Paraguay and a couple similar ones. All of which resulted in delete. The same reasons apply here for why those lists weren't notable and got deleted. Mainly, there's zero evidence that the schools are notable as a group or set. Let alone individually. None of them are blue linked either. There are a few "references" in the article, but they aren't being cited to anything and aren't usable for notability anyway because one is a blog and the other is a dead link. I couldn't find any secondary, usable sources to replace them with when I did a WP:BEFORE either. So, this list is clearly WP:LISTCRUFT, fails the notability criteria for lists, and therefore should be deleted. Adamant1 (talk) 19:30, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:47, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Algeria-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:47, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:52, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:18, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY and is difficult to maintain. Geschichte (talk) 21:39, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LC items 1-4. Stifle (talk) 11:16, 27 January 2022 (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. If anyone thinks a redirect from the disambiguated name would be useful for search, they can create it, but there was not a consensus to do that as the AfD result. RL0919 (talk) 19:02, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew White (historian)

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

Does not meet WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, WP:NPROF, WP:NAUTHOR, or any other SNG, as far as I can see. This author has written one book, which was reviewed [14] [15], but a single reviewed book isn't enough by itself to establish notability of the author (perhaps of the book, but not the author, and the book already has an article, The Great Big Book of Horrible Things). Levivich 18:48, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Levivich 18:48, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Levivich 18:48, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the article on the book, since the book is notable and has an article. White is not indepdently notable so we should not have a seperate article on him.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:26, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This page contains no information that cannot be found in the article about his book. What is more important, there is absolutely no reason to expect that some additional sources and facts about this person can be found: he is known only as an author of his book, and there is absolutely no reason to expect that some sources will be discovered that provide information about his biography, personal live, occupation etc.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:21, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: not independently notable of the book, the article on which already exists and where the author info is already present, so there's nothing to merge. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:42, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball delete - per nom. --Nug (talk) 05:59, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not pass WP:GNG. This article has insignificant coverage; it can be merged with the article on the book itself.Juggyevil (talk) 19:41, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
just redirect to The Great Big Book of Horrible Things. The article does not suggest the author has written anything else of note. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:56, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to New London Academy (Pennsylvania) as WP:ATD. ✗plicit 23:47, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New London High School (Pennsylvania)

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

Non-notable school that may have existed 100 years ago for a short time. The single source is a YouTube clip(!) which no longer exists. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:36, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Perhaps merge and redirect to Avon Grove High School.~~ BD2412 T 17:51, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to New London Academy (Pennsylvania). A little digging turned up the tidbit of information that the New London High School in Chester County occupied the same building that previously housed the New London Academy, which is stubby but clearly notable. A Newspapers.com search shows passing mentions of sports teams representing the school in local contests up until 1936. My going theory is that after the unrelated New London School explosion in Texas (which was well-reported in Pennsylvania newspapers), the local authorities found it expediant to change the name of the school to something that would not evoke memories of that disaster. BD2412 T 18:03, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I crated this article back in 2013 when we held that any upper level secondary school we could show had existed was notable. Our inclusion standards were tightened in an RfC in 2017. So this article does not now meet our inclusion criteria. If I remember correctly the YouTube clip did show original documents, it was clearly trying to be a historically accurate presentation, just because it was on YouTube does not mean it is less than the level of verrifying things. This was done at a time when the understanding was that upper level secondary schools did not have to meet GNG at all, that we did not have to in any way demonstrated notability or secondary source coverage, and only that they existed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:18, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:51, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:52, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:52, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Johnpacklambert since this isn't notable. I'm not sure it's worth merging considering the other article is un-referenced and it would be undue weight or whatever, but I'm not going to lose any sleep over it if the article is merged instead of deleted. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:00, 21 January 2022 (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. IAR. Obvious bad faith nomination. Issues with article can be solved editorially. Star Mississippi 02:43, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ramdasa

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

Non-notable individual. Claims made in the article are not supported by the single source, with nothing else found about this person. Article has been orphaned for five years. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:32, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:22, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:22, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There’s quite a bit about him, mostly under the spellings “Ramdas” or “Ramadasa”. I found several refs in what look like reliable works of scholarship, as well as others that look like more dubious Hindu nationalist POV-pushing. See 1 2 and 3 - there are many others. Mccapra (talk) 18:38, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

also now de orphaned. Mccapra (talk) 18:52, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep: For someone as ready as Lugnuts to howl WP:BEFORE! at the drop of a byte, he doesn't seem to have exerted himself much on this pointy AfD ... and this really isn't a good look for someone who's Wikipedia's champion for creating SIGCOV-less sub-stubs, to the point that he was recently community banned from stub creation for six months. Obvious sources are obvious. I'm comfortable with calling this a bad faith nomination. Ravenswing 14:58, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment even if this article is kept, it is undeniable it is really bad right now and that it does not reflect the subject's notability (if it has enough one). Expansion here is required. Super Ψ Dro 15:18, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Which was the reason I nominated it. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:04, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You nominated it for deletion because it needs expansion????? Mccapra (talk) 22:12, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No. The bit about "does not reflect the subject's notability". Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:45, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good grief. AfDs aren't cleanup! Ravenswing 12:08, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:17, 22 January 2022 (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. Closed early per WP:SKCRIT #2b. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:28, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A. C. Nelson

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

Non-notable educator. Only claim to fame cited is that he had to testify in a trial! Nothing found when searching for more sources, just the standard genelogy websites. Looks like The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints spam. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:23, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:POLITICIAN as a state superintendent of education, as verified by the New York Times. Calling a biography of a person who died 105 years ago "spam" does not strike me as helpful. Cullen328 (talk) 17:47, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:22, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:22, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep: For someone as ready as Lugnuts to howl WP:BEFORE! at the drop of a byte, he doesn't seem to have exerted himself much on this pointy AfD ... and this really isn't a good look for someone who's Wikipedia's champion for creating SIGCOV-less sub-stubs, to the point that he was recently community banned from stub creation for six months. Obvious sources are obvious. I'm comfortable with calling this a bad faith nomination. Ravenswing 14:59, 21 January 2022 (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 Moved to draft. Moved to draft, to allow creator to possibly make an encyclopedia article out of.... whatever this is. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:56, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Worthington Advance 2

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

No explanation of notability, no sourcing, at least not valid ones. Unbroken Chain (talk) 16:29, 20 January 2022 (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 Shooting at the 1960 Summer Olympics – Men's trap#Results. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:59, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Marcel Chennaux

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

We have decided that people are no longer default notable only for participating in the olympics, only for medaling. I did a comprehensive search of google, google books, google scholar, google news and goolge news archive to try and find additional sources and found nothing. The one source we have is the type of hyper inclusive source that does not show notability. I was not able to find any coverage of any competition beyond his one appearance in the Olympics. We do not have anything showing that he is notable. John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:25, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of notability. I had no better results trying to find sources than JPL did. With the presumption of notability for competing in the Olympics no longer applicable, and lacking any biographical information on Chennaux, this should not be an article. Article title can be made a redirect to Shooting at the 1960 Summer Olympics – Men's trap. Schazjmd (talk) 17:14, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:23, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Luxembourg-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:23, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Shooting at the 1960 Summer Olympics – Men's trap#Results. Best, GPL93 (talk) 01:39, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect per nom and Schazjmd. Per Shooting at the 1960 Summer Olympics – Men's trap, Chennaux did not finish among the top 36 competitors and thus did not even advance to the main competition. Cbl62 (talk) 13:21, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Is there a website that contains old, "Luxembourgian" newspaper archives? BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:44, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per User:GPL93 Deb (talk) 12:18, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per the above. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:05, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per all above. In the future, I would encourage editors to just be bold and redirect these kinds of pages when notability is clearly not met following a WP:BEFORE search rather than creating a bunch of AfDs. Smartyllama (talk) 19:04, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep per WP:SNOW. Evident consensus is that the topic is notable and that this is the wrong forum to discuss ordinary editorial concerns about how to organize material. XOR'easter (talk) 21:37, 22 January 2022 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Cosmology

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

when people talk about cosmology, they mean either science i. e. a part of astronomy, or religious cosmology. The first meaning is described in the article physical cosmology (it seems to me that it is the primary topic, and it may be worth moving that article into just 'cosmology'), the second in the article religious cosmology. Cosmology looks now as an attempt for a WP:broad-concept article. But I do not think that a broad-concept article on this topic is possible. It is definetly fails "expert test": the expert on "cosmology" would need to have both physics and religiom in their knowledge base, along with philosophy.

Therefore, I think that it is necessary to disambiguate, i.e. replace it with Cosmology (disambiguation). Heanor (talk) 16:21, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - this is the wrong venue for discussing what is in essence an editorial discussion over content and a question of what the main topic vs. dab should be. Guettarda (talk) 16:33, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Guettarda, ok, where should we discuss this? I follow Wikipedia:Broad-concept article#Approaches. --Heanor (talk) 16:38, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Heanor: I'd start by raising it on the article's talk page. Guettarda (talk) 17:23, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:23, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: notable. Cosmology, "a branch of metaphysics that deals with the nature of the universe; a theory or doctrine describing the natural order of the universe". Praemonitus (talk) 21:42, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Cosmology – the branch of astronomy dealing with the origin and structure of the Universe – is certainly notable and the article breaches none of the main content policies. I also dare say it's the primary topic with the correct title; physical cosmology is a self-described branch and religious cosmology is not strictly a science. In any case, AfD is not the proper venue to discuss this. ComplexRational (talk) 21:52, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per WP:SNOW PianoDan (talk) 22:29, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep I made the same mistake a while ago at Error, which is also a BCA that discusses multiple related meanings. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 22:50, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per Guettarda et al. Using the normal editorial process to FIXIT seems like a good idea to me. AfD is not the correct mechanism. De Guerre (talk) 02:34, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Topic is both notable and encyclopedic. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:58, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete - A1, probably A7, also SNOW.... Giant Snowman 21:25, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2021-2022

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

Not a notable football season. The club, FC Británico de Madrid, plays in Primera Regional. Mvqr (talk) 16:19, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom. JackFrost987 (talk) 16:36, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:25, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:25, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:55, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 20:36, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per WP:A1 (no context) and WP:A7 (No indication of importance). What is the article even about?--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:35, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, there must be a speedy category for this too (A7 seems appropriate). Looks to be a season article for a non-notable club (who don't appear to have an article). Joseph2302 (talk) 09:01, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:45, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:45, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - hard to tell given the total lack of context but this club seems to play in some sort of very low-level amateur/recreational league, way below the level at which individual season articles are appropriate -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:50, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:38, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Payam Turk

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

Payam Turk

Musical artist whose article makes no claim of satisfying general notability or musical notability. An article should speak for itself and should explain why the subject is notable without the need for the reader to review the references, and this article does not do that. A check of the references is useless anyway. They are all to music streaming services.

Number	Reference	Remarks	Independent	Secondary
1	SoundCloud	User-generated content	No	No
2	YouTube	User-generated content	No	No
3	Deezer	Music streaming service: User-generated content	No	No
4	Spotify	Music streaming service: User-generated content	No	No
5	Nifrətim Artır Sənə	YouTube	No	No
6	Dostum	Deezer	No	No
7	Üzü qaralar	Deezer	No	No
8	Gəl - Üzü qaralar	Deezer	No	No
9	Mənən Türk	Deezer	No	No
10	Gecə yarı	Spotify	No	No
11	nifret	SoundCloud	No	No
12	Yaradan	SoundCloud	No	No

There is no independent significant coverage. Naïve Google search is useless also. It shows that the subject uses social media, and shows the same musical works that are available on the music streaming services.

This article was moved to draft space once by reviewer User:DMySon, and was immediately moved back to article space by the originator without change or improvement. Since the originator is not interested in developing the article, the community has no obligation to be interested in keeping in the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:06, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:06, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:06, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:06, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:06, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clear indication of non notable musical artist, fails WP:GNG also unable to satisfy WP:SINGER. DMySon (talk) 16:12, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DMySon. Having songs doesn't mean someone's notable. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 08:25, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NMUSICIAN. Fancruft. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 10:12, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable (per all of the above). Eagleash (talk) 13:37, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of any SIGCOV from reliable/independent sources or claim of notability in the article.Brayan ocaner (talk) 22:01, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG, WP:SIGCOV & WP:NMUSICIAN Juggyevil (talk) 19:55, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non notable musician -Xclusivzik (talk) 20:30, 22 January 2022 (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) 19:59, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Golden Bengal Tea

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

Advertisement, though I think without coi. Even the title use the trade name, complete with "The" The sources are all identical or almost identical, apparently copies of the same press release (as far as I could judge by Google translate). I couldn't copy The Wall to translate it, and abplive is at least partially rewritten, but uses the same phrases. Is there any independent source that is not a press release?

Several other teas also show up in Google, from different places and with different names, all claiming to be the most expensive tea in the world, such as "Silver Tips Imperial" DGG ( talk ) 16:06, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: In agreement with DGG. This is a classic end-to-end WP:PROMO entity page with zero/null encylopedic value. - Hatchens (talk) 16:23, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:24, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:24, 20 January 2022 (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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:31, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Elijah Schaffer

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

Non notable conservative and Journalist. Fails WP:GNG DFXYME (talk) 09:57, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. DFXYME (talk) 09:57, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. DFXYME (talk) 09:57, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. DFXYME (talk) 09:57, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How exactly is he not relevant? I in Germany know so do many others.Guess how I found this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8109:8AC0:2B8:9180:E0FC:31E8:524C (talk) 08:25, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:03, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have been able to locate signifcant, reliable, independent coverage secondary to the subject here, here, here and here. Subject is notable due to significant coverage and hence this article ought not be deleted. Such-change47 (talk) 13:07, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 15:46, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Such-change47. Kiwichris (talk) 21:49, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Such-change47. And i`d like to add what I was able to find in a few minutes: Highly relevant figure with more than 47,000,000 views on his own YouTube channels: ^[1], ^[2]. Repeatedly finds himself in high profile breaking news situations ^[3], ^[4] which end up being played on all major media; has appeared in high profile documentaries. ^[5] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:1AD9:150:3973:17B:D6FA:E555 (talk) 06:06, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ You Are Here. "7,830,041 views", Retrieved on 1/22/2022
^ Slightly Offensive. "40,176,703 views", Retrieved on 1/22/2022
^ EXCLUSIVE: Elijah Schaffer Interviews Alleged Kenosha Shooter Before Shooting [1],
^ Twitter Status, [2]
^ Tucker Carlson and Elijah Schaffer explore what really happened on Jan 6 [3]

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 Radyo Pilipino. ✗plicit 03:12, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DWRP-TV

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

Television channel does not meet WP:GNG- lacks coverage in independent sources to distinguish it from a WP:RUNOFTHEMILL channel. MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:33, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:47, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:47, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It does seem to originate local programming, but when it comes to the Philippines, I have no idea where to find appropriate sources. If this article is to be kept, someone with more familiarity with Filipino TV will have to find me information on its history or more coverage, because right now, with no other context, I would !vote delete. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 23:42, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Radyo Pilipino, which is the owner of the station, and it is mentioned there. Not enough in-depth sourcing to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:21, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting to generate consensus on redirect target or if article should be deleted outright.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 15:26, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect the redirect as suggested seems reasonable. Oaktree b (talk) 17:39, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Radyo Pilipino per User:onel5969 --Lenticel ^(talk) 03:26, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Radyo Pilipino as an alternative for deletion. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 15:42, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:50, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Habibur Rahman (journalist)

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

IMO, non-notable journalist. Most of sources are same, almost identical writing, they basically published same press release from Dhaka Reporters Unity about this person death (WP:NEWSEVENT). Prior to the person death, i was unable to find one single source about the person. Death in road accident doesn't make someone notable. Fails WP:GNG. Also fails every criteria of WP:JOURNALIST. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 14:49, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:50, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:51, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet NBIO or GNG. This was tagged for notability just a couple of revisions after its creation. -Cupper52^Discuss! 15:55, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The media coverage is centered on the motorcycle accident. If there was grounds for inclusion, the subject of the article would be about the accident (e..g, Joigny coach crash), not the journalist. The extent of the media coverage was only one day. However, given the event was recent, there might be more coverage in the future due to political statements by Awami League party members. No indication it meets any guideline at this moment. Multi7001 (talk) 03:32, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom —MdsShakil (talk) 01:08, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not sure how is he notable.103.109.56.38 (talk) 04:03, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- per WP:ANYBIO — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthonyjmel (talk • contribs) 05:56, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the person met the criteria listed under WP:ANYBIO, please read again. Also, I have doubts about your contribution. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 18:30, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:35, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dalia Gebrial

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

I can't find any substantial coverage of the subject in reliable sources. Cited sources are either written by the subject, primary, not independent or trivial mentions. WP:BIO is therefore definitely not met. WP:AUTHOR and WP:PROF are harder to assess, but with an h-index of 8, appear to be unlikely to be met. SmartSE (talk) 14:34, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:42, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:42, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:43, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:44, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:44, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:46, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subjects meets the WP:BASIC standard.--User:Namiba 15:08, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @Namiba: Based off which sources? SmartSE (talk) 17:11, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think it's certainly WP:TOOSOON for WP:NPROF for this PhD student, though the one highly cited work is a good start. I'm not finding sufficient reviews for WP:NAUTHOR -- that would be a stretch anyway, given that there is only one authored (and highly coauthored) book. I see passing mentions in the Guardian and Independent concerning the Cecil Rhodes protests, but I think this is short of WP:SIGCOV; it looks like it would be a WP:BLP1E anyway. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 17:05, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as either WP:PROF or (more likely eventually ) WP:Author. One significant book ,and one only. The article iseems to be used as a WP:COATRACK for her opinions. DGG ( talk ) 17:23, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Doesn't the fact that she has a name in such a source make it encyclopedic? --E.Imanoff (talk) 19:16, 20 January 2022 (UTC) — E.Imanoff (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Elshadiman (talk · contribs). [reply]
- VIAF? No. That's a database of people who have published a book. (Or, more specifically, been listed somewhere in the catalogs of various major national libraries and equivalent listings — it's actually a tool for cross-indexing those libraries.) It is merely a spinoff of the fact already discussed and dismissed as insufficient above, that she is the author of one book. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:25, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Thanks for the extensive explanation.--E.Imanoff (talk) ^Search 19:36, 20 January 2022 (UTC)~~[reply]

Comment The book she co-edited, Decolonising the University, certainly seems to be notable and could use a Wikipedia page if someone were so inclined. pburka (talk) 23:55, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~@Pburka This is a very good idea. --E.Im anoff ^Snatch 01:13, 21 January 2022 (UTC)~~[reply]
Delete as WP:Too soon for WP:Prof. GNG not attained yet. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:20, 21 January 2022 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:20, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Harding (professor)

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

BLP without any working references. Rathfelder (talk) 14:14, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 14:14, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 14:14, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:48, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:49, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I didn't succeed in finding anything about the subject, although it is difficult to search on a relatively common name. WP:TNT applies in any case to the nearly unsourced article. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 17:23, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No US, UK, or AU digital footprint aside from one 1978 peer-reviewed report [16]. Does not meet WP:GNG or any guideline. Multi7001 (talk) 00:16, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The literature searches above aren't turning up anything we can use and we should err on the delete side in such BLP cases. — Charles Stewart (talk) 13:06, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 02:08, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cannot find sufficient to support notability. Aoziwe (talk) 09:12, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:21, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maratha Bhattshahi

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

Completely uncited and poorly formatted. Gandalf the Groovy (talk) 13:57, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it does not appear there are any in-depth sources and I'm not entirely sure what the article is even about. Plus there's a random link to "Thumb" at the end of the page. Wgullyn (talk) 14:01, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:35, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unless reliable sources can be added, this cannot be verified. If it is plausible that this is correct and some basic sources can be found, it may be a candidate for draftification, but otherwise I would say delete. The link to thumb might be an erroneous attempt to add a thumbnail or image. ASUKITE 15:57, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reference in the article. JackFrost987 (talk) 16:39, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Unreferenced, and searching the title in quotation marks on google provides one result at all. Does not appear notable. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 16:46, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete though I'd be more comfortable if a Hindi speaker could confirm that there are no solid references that are not written in the Latin alphabet. As is, the article doesn't even make clear what its subject is and I'm not sure it's salvageable so even if we can find references, this is almost a case of WP:TNT. Pichpich (talk) 22:19, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Geschichte (talk) 14:20, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1970 Whitewater State Warhawks football team

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

Dubious move to mainspace of a draft which contains nothing but a table of routine matches and a generic lead which doesn't provide much encyclopedic information (the fact that it is basically an exact copy of the infobox, but in prose, tells you everything). A WP:RUNOFTHEMILL collegiate football team season which fails WP:GNG, WP:NOTSTATS, and even doesn't meet any of the suggested cutoffs of WP:NSEASONS. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:55, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:35, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:36, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:36, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wisconsin–Whitewater Warhawks football. Fails WP:GNG. This is an article about a low-level college football team with a mediocre 6–4 record and no championship or other notable accomplishments. Even high school football teams get some SIGCOV, but we don't allow season articles on high school seasons. IMO a run-of-the-mill NAIA season is a step above high school football, but we still should not encourage season articles about each and every run-of-the-mill NAIA season. There is an IP user (@65.30.134.209:) who is creating these articles on Whitewater seasons. I would encourage them to focus on the exceptional Whitewater seasons and building those seasons into high-quality articles. Alternatively, consider creating grouped articles on Whitewater football by decade (or by head coach tenure) as suggested in WP:NSEASONS, bullet point five. Cbl62 (talk) 15:28, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, yes, I agree we shouldn't have articles on HS and most NAIA seasons. However, Whitewater seems to get much significant coverage (which can be found in the article) in several different papers (locality is completely irrelevant) which makes me lean towards keep. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:49, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm in favor of an extensive sidebar discussion about what is best for Wikipedia on college football season articles. I would expect that discussions would cover various divisions, NCAA v NAIA, NJCAA, pre-NCAA history, etc. We'd probably look at guidelines and alternatives and talk a lot about WP:IAR. If we just go with WP:GNG. A turbo-enthusiastic editor with research capabilities could probably find extensive coverage for many season articles but I'm not sure that is the best thing for Wikipedia. As to this particular article, I'm presently uncertain.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:17, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that such a discussion would be useful. My view is that we consider stricter guidelines for low level seasons (e.g., limit such articles to national or conference champions). If we can't police ourselves, it invites attention from those not as familiar with college football who would be inclined to throw the baby out with the bathwater. E.g., RfC: Abolish the current version of NSPORTS. Cbl62 (talk) 16:50, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another possible solution (and one consistent with WP:NSEASONS) for lower division seasons would be (a) to strictly limit stand-alone articles to truly exceptional seasons (with a discussion to be had on what qualifies as exceptional) (b) while encouraging well-sourced grouped articles based on coaching tenure or decade. Cbl62 (talk) 16:55, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes GNG per cited sources. This season is on the same plane of significance as 1968 Whitewater State Warhawks football team, which Cbl62 nominated for deletion and then withdrew after agreeing that it was notable. That being said, I agree with the Cbl's recommendation to the IP user. I also support Paul McDonald's recommendation for the extensive sidebar discussion. Jweiss11 (talk) 16:45, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
None of the cited sources is SIGCOV. They're either match reports from right after the events, including interviews (we don't consider these SIGCOV for pro leagues, I don't see why all of a sudden they're acceptable for collegiate sports, and stuff like "Coach Was Right—Warhawks Are Good" certainly puts a dent into the notion that these are truly independent sources) or database entries. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:44, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
RandomCanadian, that reads as "I don't like football". Please focus on something more productive than these spurious AfDs. Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 22:51, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If people are willing to accept sources which are obviously not independent (like "Coach Was Right-Warhawks Are Good") or which are obvious routine match reports as being SIGCOV, then Wikipedia has a larger problem with sports than I expected. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:58, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"The Coach Was Right-Warhawks Are Good" is an article published by the Wisconsin State Journal and written by a sportswriter on their staff. Unless you're arguing that the second-largest newspaper in Wisconsin is in the pocket of an out-of-town state college, that's definitely an independent source. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 01:08, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
RandomCanadian, sports journalists often write congratulatory or celebratory things about the teams and people they cover. This doesn't make them not independent from those sports entities. The idea that the Wisconsin State Journal is not independent from the University of Wisconsin–Whitewater is absurd. I'm also dismayed that you've taken my admonishment above and initiated yet another spurious AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1977 South Dakota Coyotes football team). Jweiss11 (talk) 03:55, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Everything I said in my !vote on the AfD for the 1967 season applies here too, but suffice it to say that the sources cited in the article qualify as significant coverage in multiple independent sources, as required by GNG. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 01:08, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Still doesn't address the NOT or the RUNOFTHEMILL issues, There must be something unusual, something unique about the subject so that the article does not just read blank is blank (which would essentially be a dictionary entry) and that it does not resemble hundreds of other articles by containing mostly the same words with a few fill-in-the-blanks. In effect, this article does "resemble thousands of others" - I could probably copy-paste the Year Run-of-the-mill sports team from here, since that eloquently proves my point. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:16, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, WP:MILL is an essay, and second, every college football season has different games with different plays and different results. If we have sources that document in detail what happened in those games, as we do in this case, we can write summaries of what happened in each of those games and the narrative around the season. That narrative hasn't been written for this article yet, but being an underdeveloped stub isn't a valid reason for deletion. As for the argument I think you're making with WP:NOT, again, we have the source material to write prose summaries of each game and a broader narrative of the season, and those go well beyond mere statistics. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 04:27, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

keep latest revisions and research have produced a good number of third party articles that surpass the general notability guideline and provide a good amount of prose to the article, clearly exceeding the NOTSTATS standard. I'm not swayed by the argument on the "run-of-them-mill" essay--upon close examination, it looks to me like this article meets the standard for inclusion in that essay.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:25, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG, per all above. Ejgreen77 (talk) 05:22, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per TheCatalyst31. This article meets the threshold for significant coverage established by GNG. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 20:54, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets GNG. The team's record is irrelevant if there are enough sources. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 02:07, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sourcing improved significantly since nomination, appears to pass WP:GNG. NemesisAT (talk) 13:48, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep plenty of sources, passes WP:GNG. This is another POINTy nomination by this user. Spf121188 (talk) 21:12, 26 January 2022 (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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:21, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shaji Chaudhary

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

Non notable actor. No major roles as an Actor. Not enough news coverage for qualifying notability. Article created by a blocked user. IndaneLove (talk) 06:17, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. IndaneLove (talk) 06:17, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. IndaneLove (talk) 06:17, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:33, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:33, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, he does not seem to have had multiple starring roles, so he fails WP:NACTOR, and while there is a lot of coverage that comes up when you search his name, the only thing I found that might be from a reliable source was this article in the Hindustan Times, so he fails WP:GNG. Devonian Wombat (talk) 00:21, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:18, 20 January 2022 (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. Geschichte (talk) 12:42, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hana Horka

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

Hana Horka is in the news because she died of COVID-19 after deliberately getting infected while being unvaccinated, in order to qualify for a vaccine passport in Czechia. She was also a vocalist for folk group Asonance, but I cannot find any coverage of her other than of her death. Her death is not a major event so WP:BLP1E applies - being a member of a notable band does not in itself make her notable. I redirected the article, but the article creator reverted. Fences&Windows 13:17, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Fences&Windows 13:17, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. Fences&Windows 13:17, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Asonance per nom, WP:BLP1E applies. All I can find in a search result from before this year is scattered mentions of the band in local news. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 13:24, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note that WP:BLP1E applies to living people; see WP:BIO1E instead. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:56, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See also this recent relevant discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of prominent COVID-19 sceptics who have died from COVID-19 and this current one:Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_December_31#Category:Anti-vaccination_activist_deaths_from_the_COVID-19_pandemic. Fences&Windows 13:34, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I also cannot find reliable sources for this individual outside of articles about her death. I agree with the proposal to Redirect. DJ Cane (talk) 13:40, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect agree with the redirect. Oaktree b (talk) 17:40, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Should not be deleted — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jhananw (talk • contribs) 19:55, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Asonance per filelakeshoe. Jdcooper (talk) 12:21, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Asonance. She's only as notable as the band itself. Just because she got international coverage because of the nature of her death, does not give extra weight to her actually notability. --Jkaharper (talk) 13:59, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Asonance. She did nothing notable outside the band, and per WP:BIO1E the recent news coverage does not make her independently notable. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:55, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
According to People notable for only one event, moving the article to Death of Hannah Horka would seem the most appropriate action, since the event of her death has had a large enough media presence to be deemed notable.

“

[…] when an individual plays a major role in a minor event […] the name of the person should redirect to the article on the incident, especially if the individual is only notable for that incident and it is all that the person is associated with in the source coverage.

”

Dan ☺ 11:56, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe her death is a notable event. Unvaccinated people dying of COVID-19 is a run-of-the-mill event. See Wikipedia:Notability (events) for the criteria. There's been a burst of rather sensationalist and brief reporting because she chose to get infected, but there's no wider repercussions from her death. We have the general article Deaths of anti-vaccine advocates from COVID-19, but lists of deaths have been repeatedly deleted. Fences&Windows 22:31, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Clearly not notable, possible future winner of the Darwin Award Sirhissofloxley (talk) 21:42, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Asonance. – Csurla (talk) 18:54, 26 January 2022 (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. Stifle (talk) 11:15, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Artyom Mikhalkov

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

Russian actor of episodic roles and director of little-known films.--Владимир Бежкрабчжян (talk) 07:16, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 January 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:29, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:31, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:31, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:31, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:17, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:58, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mapper orientation

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

"Mapper orientation" doesn't appear to exist outside of some forum/blog uses. Xurizuri (talk) 12:42, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. Xurizuri (talk) 12:42, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Xurizuri (talk) 12:42, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a search reveals no usable sources like journals or textbooks, so this is not notable. There are some confounding (mapmaking) hits but the picture of non-notability is clear enough. This must be a neologism in forum/blog usage; pseudoscience is not far away. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:57, 20 January 2022 (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 Baar Baar Dekho#Soundtrack. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🎉 _{(HAPPY 2022)} 12:30, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kala Chashma

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

Fails WP:NSONG. Mako001 (C) (T) 12:20, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Mako001 (C) (T) 12:20, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:38, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Baar Baar Dekho#Soundtrack. Fails WP:NSONG per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 02:34, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Baar Baar Dekho#Soundtrack. Does not meet NSONG independenlty. -- Ab207 (talk) 13:48, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:57, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maxwell Burns

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

Non notable member of a notable family: he died when he was less than 3 years old, and as his his father was dead by the time he was born, it isn't as if he was the inspiration for notable works either. Probably some of the other articles about family members need to be looked at as well (e.g. Elizabeth Riddell Burns). Suggestions for the best redirect target are welcome. Fram (talk) 12:19, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 12:19, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 12:19, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not even remotely close to being notable. Notability is not inherited, and the less than 3 year old son of a writer who was born after his writer father died is in no way going to make any passing of notability at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:51, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom and failure to meet WP:GNG due to the lack of WP:SIGCOV focusing in depth on the life of Maxwell Burns. Entries in genealogical databases don't cut it. Nor do the father's letters about the impending birth. Cbl62 (talk) 16:05, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Shame on you :-) We are approaching Burns Night and you are objecting to research on Scotland's most famous person! The article brings together in one place all the admittedly scant details and links regarding a child whose impending birth was of such concern that a dying man wrote his last ever letter regarding it. Wikipedia policies are surely more flexible than you imply? Rosser Gruffydd
Keep(here or with full current entry retained in the redirect entry). Certainly don't delete or submerge in another entry (say a portmanteau entry on Burns's children) till there is more discussion of how people will find the William Maxwell Burns entry, and whether the research gathered in the current entry will remain fully available. If not noteable in himself, he is noteworthy in the sense that people using wikipedia for Burns topics want to be able easily to locate accurate information on any of Burns's children, and this entry assembles perhaps the fullest body of information and references anywhere (at least on the web). There is an issue for Wikipedia in having independent entries for people of this kind, where we know people want to find good information easily, not through multiple redirects; one test of notabilty or the viability of separate entries might be whether they rated an entry in the print Burns Encyclopaedias over the years. Patrick Scott, author, Robert Burns: A Documentary Volume (2018), etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greigscott (talk • contribs) 21:09, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Seeing that he gets one line in the Burns encyclopedia[17], that's hardly an argument to keep this. If even highly, highly specialised encyclopedias don't give much attention to the subject, then it is not the place of Wikipedia to go further. Most of the article is fluff, a lot of text to hide that there is very little to say about Maxwell Burns: highly surprising for someone who died before they were three years old of course. It's hard to see why "people using Wikipedia for Bruns topics" would want to know anything beyond what the Burns Encyclopedia has to say. Similarly, for other famous persons, we don't reproduce every scrap of info that can be found in e.g. a book-length biography, but we summarize the important points. And Maxwell Burns is not an important point in the life and career of Robert Burns, he is a footnote, worth a mention, not an article. Fram (talk) 08:37, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - When you are in a hole stop digging. You are now adding your personal opinion as insults to a lack of appreciation of a Scottish icon. I take it that you wouldn't mind the Scottish press reading your considered opinion? Take a day off to think your comments through as I find that helps. Rosser Gruffydd 10:58, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - I wasn't aware that Maxwell Burns was a Scottish icon, nor that I said anything wrong about Robert Burns? Feel free to inform the Scottish press about this AfD though, I would be thoroughly amazed if any of them would care one bit about this, or see anything insulting about Robert Burns in it. You seem to be overreacting a bit here. Fram (talk) 11:08, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - Pure obfuscation. Please discuss the issue. Rosser Gruffydd 08:59, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For the record I do not think we should have any article on anyone who died before age 5, period, nor do I think we should create articles on people who are not yet 5. The one exception might be if someone that age actually is the monarch of somewhere. There may be a few other exceptions, but I have opposed articles with actual secondary source coverage focused on people this young. Definitely finding a mention in a personal letter of a child about to be born by anyone does not show that person is notable. Notability is not inherited. No matter how notable someone is, that does not directly make anyone related to them notable. It may indirectly work, if it leads to reliable source secondary coverage of these other people that is significant in sources than are independent of the subject, but it does not directly lead to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:23, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Age is far to blunt a tool to apply. Robert Burns, a world famous individual and Scotland's most famous person, was dying and his thoughts and actions were concenrated on his wife and new baby! This article pulls together all that is known and as President of a researching Burns Club (No.2262) we will be adding more information as we find it. Rosser Gruffydd 08:55, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article has had 223 views to date (datum 24 Jan) and views of your proposal on 'Robert Burns' Facebook have reached 1400. I note that Wikipedia has many articles that are only a line or two long with request tags to 'Expand' them. You say that the Burns Bibliography has a single line. Try the official source for details - "Purdie, David; McCue Kirsteen and Carruthers, Gerrard. (2013). Maurice Lindsay's The Burns Encyclopaedia. London : Robert Hale. ISBN 978-0-7090-9194-3." Rosser Gruffydd 08:28, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Number of views for an article at AfD is hardly indicative of anything. Trying to get outside support from a partisan audience is called WP:CANVASSing though. I don't have access to the "official" source (since when do we have "official" and "unofficial" sources for the biographies of long-dead people?), but e.g. this 2011 biography of Burns[Maurice Lindsay's The Burns Encyclopaedia] has two sentences about Maxwell, which is indicative of the importance of Maxwell. In Ian McIntyre's "Robert Burns: A Life", he gets a footnote... Fram (talk) 09:46, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Fram - about your perhaps and hopefully unintended 'insulting' comments regarding 'fluff' and 'padding out'. I run an official Burns Research Club and we do what it says on the box. As a representative of Wikipedia, part of your purpose is to be impartial and polite. Wikipedia policy on this topic of 'Editor Standards' makes interesting reading which you need to read and in part refresh your memory? I have quite a few articles on Wikipedia and once had a polite message of thanks from the Wikiedia Founder. I also support Wikipedia with donations. What have you to say? You seemed angry at the person who voted 'Keep'. Rosser Gruffydd 08:43, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Your donations and relations with Jimmy Wales are not really relevant for the fate of this article. Donations don't give you any more or less status on Wikipedia. I'm glad you run an "official" Burns research club (as opposed to an unofficial one supposedly). Fram (talk) 09:46, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Wikipedia is flexible and an article that covers the last child of a world famous celebrity and Scotland's most famous person, as voted by the Scottish People, has a far greater relevance than the average Joe. Would you treat say George Washington with the same perceived lack of respect? Rosser Gruffydd 08:43, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As an American who has focused extensively on the US Presidency, I would say "Yes" though not out of "lack of respect". I would give equal treatment to a son of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, or Abraham Lincoln who was born shortly after their death, who lived less than three years, who lacks any SIGCOV in reliable, independent sources, and for whom the major sourcing consists of a couple brief mentions in prenatal letters written by the father. Our WP:GNG guideline requires that the subject of a stand-alone article (in this case, Maxwell) has received in-depth coverage in multiple, reliable, secondary sources. Here, the mentions of an unborn son in Burns' letters does not rise to the level of SIGCOV, and the letters do not qualify as either independent (written by the father) or secondary. Cbl62 (talk) 13:57, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosser1954: Another guideline that provides some good insights is WP:NOTINHERITED. Cbl62 (talk) 14:05, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To take it even further, of Thomas Jefferson's 6 children from marriage, only two have articles. Neither of John Adams' two children who did not see adulthood have articles either. George Washington didn't have any biological children, but neither of the two children of Martha Washington's that died at young ages have standalone articles. So yeah, this is a standard treatment. Best, GPL93 (talk) 01:57, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with Cbl62 that WP:NOTINHERITED applies here. Relevant information should be merged into Robert Burns's article, but there's nothing in terms of referencing that would support a standalone article. I also agree with Fram that there are some other related articles that appear to have dubious notability. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:38, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED, and keep arguments are variants of WP:ILIKEIT - including some accusations as to the nominator's motives which are irrelevant to the subject, really. Geschichte (talk) 12:40, 27 January 2022 (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. Tone 09:53, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Daria Podtelejnikova

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

No evidence of notability found. I redirected to Danish Figure Skating Championships(which she won by default as the only competitor), but article creator reverted. Article has no indepth sources, and searching online only reveals more databases and similar sources[18], and no Google News hits. Fram (talk) 09:02, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 09:02, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 09:02, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:40, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:40, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:SPORTCRIT in that she hasn't competed on the highest level of her sport, and does not meet any other guideline either. Geschichte (talk) 21:49, 20 January 2022 (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. Tone 09:53, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

KineMaster Corporation

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

It does not appear to meet WP:NCORP. There's many Google results for piracy sites, but barely any coverage in reliable sources about the company. MarioGom (talk) 08:33, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MarioGom (talk) 08:33, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. MarioGom (talk) 08:33, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. MarioGom (talk) 08:33, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The company and app is notable though but the article is unsourced and I dont see any reliable sources. HelpingWorld (talk) 19:33, 20 January 2022 (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 no consensus (at this point) as to whether to merge this content with existing articles about the NY subway, as people disagree about the lasting importance of the event, but there is consensus that the article - if it is to be kept - should be retitled and rewritten to be about the killing (or death, or murder, as to be determined by editors), not the victim. Sich an article can then be renominated at AfD if desired. Sandstein 10:52, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle Alyssa Go

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

WP:ONEVENT Ymblanter (talk) 07:28, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 07:28, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 07:28, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 07:28, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:18, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:18, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:19, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:VICTIM. Wikipedia isn't a memorial. Article can be merged to a Death of Michelle Alyssa Go article if her death passes GNG. Dougal18 (talk) 11:03, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - @Dougal18:, History of the New York City Subway mentions Michelle Go. Your comment sounds like "delete or move". If possible, I would like to keep the article history. --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:26, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:VICTIM. The article however can be merged to the Death of Michelle Alyssa Go, if her passes GNG.--VictorRocks (talk) 11:52, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retitle to Death of Michelle Alyssa Go or Death of Michelle Go. X-Editor (talk) 14:56, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Title. I briefly heard about this death yesterday, and saw Internet news on it today. If her death is or becomes WP:NOTABLE, the standard title would be "Death of Michelle Alyssa Go" or "Death of Michelle Go" (as suggested by others). GBFEE (talk) 20:44, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but Change Title. I heard about this on the news. I think this article is fine, but I do agree with others that it should be renamed "Death of Michelle Alyssa Go" or "Death of Michelle Go". MichaelFansz (talk) 22:18, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retitle for now or merge - Retitle to "Death of Michelle Go" for now, or merge to the train station at which the incident occurred. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:14, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retitle and merge it - You know what I changed my mind. I think we should merge like the others said. Hopefully, we can also make the criminal (Simon Martial's page) or we can merge with the article. But first, lets find Simon Martial's early life. --VictorRocks (talk) 22:09, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Move page to Death of Michelle Alyssa Go Per others. - FlightTime (open channel) 02:31, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a tragedy but it fails WP:GNG WP:VICTIM but add to the station as stated by @Jax 0677.Yousef Raz (talk) 04:00, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - @Yousef Raz:, why should this not be redirected with history instead of deleted? --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:05, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @Jax 0677: Redirect to the station article. The history can stay.Yousef Raz (talk) 21:15, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retitle Rename to focus on the murder, not the subject. Michelle Alyssa Go seems to have been a wonderful person, but she obviously does not meet the guidelines required for a biography or a standalone article. Her notability is based solely on her tragic death. Most people believe that articles covering such criminal events do not belong on Wikipedia, but the article is well-sourced and does no harm. Otherwise Merge to the train station's article, to History of the New York City Subway, or to New York City Subway. Mooonswimmer 16:10, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge per WP:NVICTIM. This article could be renamed, but I do not believe that would be sufficient to prove notability of the subject, either. While this is tragic, there are over a hundred people struck by NYC Subway trains each year (dozens fatally). To have an article about just one such incident is a violation of WP:NOTNEWS; unless there is evidence of the long-term significance of this specific incident, it is not notable. As to places where people have suggested merging this: New York City Subway is a GA, so it's undue coverage to include this there. Maybe History of the New York City Subway might fit, but again, dozens of people in NYC are struck by trains just in a single year. – Epicgenius (talk) 22:57, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - @Epicgenius:, History of the New York City Subway mentions Michelle Go. --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:27, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Because you added her there yesterday. It does not mean there is consensus to mention her there.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:30, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, and I'm confused about the two other edits as well. On the Times Square–42nd Street/Port Authority Bus Terminal station, the info was added to both a see-also and its own subsection, and a {{current}} tag was added (no other edits were made in the hours immediately afterward). Judging from this, it seems like the info about Go's death was just copied from the station's article and placed at the bottom of "History", which describes the history of the entire system. I'm not sure of the long-term significance of this incident, as per my !vote above. However, it feels to me like mentioning the victim in the three articles (NYCS, History of the NYCS, Times Square station) was more of a way to prevent this page from being orphaned, rather than actually integrating the incident with these three articles. – Epicgenius (talk) 17:35, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Epicgenius, Go was pushed, which puts her in a specific subcategory of the "over a hundred people struck by NYC Subway trains each year". The "murdered by being pushed in front of a subway train" factor isn't as common as the accidental subway train injuries and deaths, and maybe not as common as people using the subway for suicide. I'm not saying Go's notable, but her murder has sparked discussion about this particular safety problem -- avoiding someone pushing you onto the tracks or into a train while on a subway. It's also led to discussion of how to accommodate mentally ill homeless people at the subway, including those who might have homicidal thoughts. Of course, if Go's death results in change, Wikipedia can always create a page for her later. GBFEE (talk) 20:35, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@GBFEE, I see your point regarding pushings. However, even in that case, this incident isn't particularly unique; just last year there were six incidents in which people were pushed to the tracks by mentally unstable people (none of whom died). Actually, this is part of a larger trend of crime in the subway going up. I do agree that if this case turns out to be notable, Go (or her pushing specifically) can always have a page. But the topic of platform safety has come up quite a bit in past pushings, and I'm not yet convinced this particular incident meets NVICTIM, because this is unfortunately too common. – Epicgenius (talk) 20:47, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Epicgenius, yes, I know it's happened before. I was simply saying she's in a specific category that appears to be less common than the general one. I don't know how common the "pushed onto the tracks by mentally ill or non-mentally ill people" thing is, or how common the murder result is from that action. But I wouldn't say the murder result is common. I looked for data on it and didn't find that to be the case. It's hard to find data on it. I understand and accept your concerns about creating this article. GBFEE (talk) 20:59, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Death of Michelle Go as suggested by others. TheAmazingRaspberry (talk) 23:51, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retitle to Murder of Michelle Alysse Go. What an utterly silly suggestion. There are hundreds of "Murder of X" articles on Wikipedia. This death has been covered extensively by the New York Times and other media. It should be retitled to Murder of Michelle Alyssa Go, but otherwise, this is an absurd and frankly censorious delete request. I also think it's silly that it's being suggested that the article be titled "Death" instead of "Murder", which seems to be against wikipedia's custom when the reason the death is notable is the fact that it was by homicide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.207.202.210 (talk) 17:52, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I particularly appreciate opinions of IP users about my mental abilities. This is the most important thing in my life.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:55, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:MURDER articles should only be titled “Murder of” if the culprit was found guilty of murder. TheAmazingRaspberry (talk) 23:11, 26 January 2022 (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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:33, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Male Rao Holkar

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

The article is not notable. It only cites one source. I can't find any reliable source which gives information about Male Rao Holkar in depth.

~~Delete~~ because Wikipedia is not a directory for everything in the universe.
~~Delete~~ unless better sources can be found.
~~Delete~~ because the article is not notable.Blue Mango Juice (talk) 03:27, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that all three above delete votes are by the nominator. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:36, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. TartarTorte 03:44, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TartarTorte 03:44, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The subject passes WP:NPOL as the ruler of Indore State. Plenty more sources can be found by simply clicking on "books" above. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:23, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, ruling Indore State is pretty significant. Pikavoom ^Talk 13:18, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Maharaja of Indore is notable. Clear pass of WP:POLITICIAN. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:33, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 07:07, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I note that the nominator has been blocked for sockpuppetry. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:35, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: WP:NPOL pass. Curbon7 (talk) 04:12, 27 January 2022 (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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:29, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hockey Night in Asia

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

Non-notable league. Fails WP:NSPORTS. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 05:13, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 05:13, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 05:13, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:35, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Ten minutes in the penalty box for non-notability. Good grief, this is a beer league sourced only by its own website. Kill it with fire! Ravenswing 09:13, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: non-notable recreational league. Flibirigit (talk) 11:41, 20 January 2022 (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. Tone 09:55, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

John Parker (boxer)

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

Does not meet WP:NBOX or WP:GNG

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:08, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:08, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:08, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Doesn't pass NBOX as a pro yet, probably will soon due to the team he is with but he does pass as he won his national title in the amateurs.--Donniediamond (talk) 13:02, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NBOX is irrelevant if he doesn't meet WP:GNG. Routine fight coverage and promotions do not meet WP:GNG, nor do passing mentions based on his brother's successful boxing career. Claiming notability based on his boxing team and/or future pro success requires WP:CRYSTALBALL and violates WP:NOTINHERITED. Willing to change my vote if significant independent coverage is shown. Papaursa (talk) 02:11, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't think a New Zealand amateur title justifies inclusion - New Zealand is a small country that isn't a major boxing nation. He's done nothing of note yet as a pro, although if he wins the NZ title next month he'd have more of a claim. Coverage so far is insufficient in my view. --Michig (talk) 09:15, 23 January 2022 (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. Tone 09:56, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Official Halloween Parody

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

Non-notable film sourced to unreliable blog and review websites.TheFinalMigration (talk) 04:38, 20 January 2022 (UTC) (talk) 04:37, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 January 20. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:51, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:10, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:10, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:11, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:11, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:09, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - AVN, which is one of the review sources, is listed under WP:RSP as "Generally Reliable" for pornography. That should be good enough for notability. Fieari (talk) 06:31, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, no. If it was mentioned in an actual article in AVN Magazine, then that may be usable to to establish notability. However, the AVN citation is to an imdb-like entry that just lists statistical data about the film, plus a single unattributed "review". This entire section of AVN just appears to be bot- or script-generated data, e.g. look at the profiles at the end such as for Lexi Swallow, note the "Is this you or Do you represent this person? Claim This Profile" banner. This isn't journalistic prose, this is errata. Zaathras (talk) 03:49, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are no reliable sources that establish notability of the subject. Zaathras (talk) 03:49, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: does not meet WP:NFILM per review of available sources. Industry blotter is insufficient for establishing notability. --K.e.coffman (talk) 19:28, 25 January 2022 (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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:28, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pickert, North Dakota

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

The actual location on the topos is by the rail line, where there is still a short siding, but those maps and aerials show a full passing siding and grain elevators, the latter disappearing sometime in the 1980s-'90s. There used to be a church to the east, and its cemetery still exists well to the west, but at the spot itself there's just a farm. Most of the sources I found related to some industrial project that never apparently happened, and I also ran across a ghost town blog that described driving through and finding nothing there. I also found a clip from Origins of North Dakota Place Names (the Williams book) describes it as a "rural post office". So survey says, yes, it was a rail point (with usual post office) and not a notable settlement. Mangoe (talk) 04:48, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Dakota-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:12, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:12, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete post-offices at a rail siding are not defulat notable. The sum of the sources does not suggest this is in any way a place that meets our inclusion criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:37, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable rail stop. –dlthewave ☎ 16:58, 26 January 2022 (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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:27, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Primary NFL television stations

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

This is not an article: it's a series of lists too extensive/crufty for the encyclopedia (such lists as former TV networks for NFL teams pre-1960, NFL games that were aired on local stations), etc. I corrected a typo and added an inline reference; astonishingly, it is the only one on the page.

It is true that one television station in a given NFL home city airs more than half the games of the home city team in any given year, but with more primetime games and cross-flexing, this is not very important. More importantly, these arrangements are functions of a network affiliation, not of individual station deals. This is, to use my words from another AfD, a source-bare piece of mush that has no place on the encyclopedia. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 04:31, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 04:31, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 04:31, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 04:31, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 04:31, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 04:32, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support unconditionally. The fact that only one citation exists says a lot. Moreover, what is a "primary NFL television station" when the television contracts are made at the league level? Nathan Obral • he/him • t • c • 05:21, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If anything, the article should be refocused solely on stations which are a team's official pre-season and other programming partner rather than...a list of stations which carry NFL games, which outside CW/MyNet stations lucky enough to get the MNF matchups, all Big Four network affiliates do these days. And we feature each team's main broadcast partners already in each team's article, so this is just so much over-detail already covered by each network's individual NFL coverage article. Nate • (chatter) 06:53, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have to agree, it doesn't look like this article content is what we're looking for in a Wikipedia article or list. It's not really covered well as a topic in third party articles. I don't disagree that it's a useful reference for enthusiastic viewers of NFL games, but that sorta feels more like original research. Topic might be better suited for an online sports almanac or TV directory. I suggest enthusiastic editors try another wiki.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:23, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Sammi Brie and Mrschimpf: Quite frankly, this is an article since it goes a bit into the history of how the National Football League has been televised. Keep in mind that this article isn't at all remotely about prime time games that air on NBC's Sunday Night Football. You can't just subjectively say that what station in what market primarily airs a specific teams games isn't important. It's very apples and oranges to compare prime time programming, where the game is all but guaranteed to get screened to the entire nation to what will likely be aired on only two markets. Also how isn't this an article? How is a list of Primary NFL stations any different than a local over-the-air markets that say, air Major League Baseball games (e.g. KTLA 5, for many years, aired Los Angeles Dodgers games) for example. That's roughly the equivalent to that. You're basically appear to saying that there's no need to tell people about how NFL games are distributed. Simply put, not every single game is going to be made available (unless of course, you have the Sunday Ticket package) to the general public. It's also very, very presumptuous to flat out say that an article like this isn't needed at all since it's simply in each team's own article already. BornonJune8 (talk) 06:11, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@BornonJune8 The fundamental difference between the NFL and the other leagues is that the NFL controls all the regular-season television inventory. If you air an NFL regular-season game, that's because your network has a contract with the league to show NFL games. If you air an MLB, NBA, or NHL regular-season game (outside of the national rights packages associated with each league), it's because you have a contract with the team. An almanac, 506 Forums, etc. would be a good place for the lists which have some value to someone, but not here. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 07:10, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Sammi Brie: Again, you come across quite subjective when you say that an almanac, 506 Forums, etc. would be a good place for the list which has some value to someone, but not here. So says the person who initially nominated said lists for deletion to begin with. Bare in mind that there's extensive information about what is in the Primary NFL television stations article virtually all of the individual articles for the local stations. And while it may be true that unlike with other pro sports leagues, the NFL controls all the regular season TV inventory, what exactly does that have to do with which exact station (i.e. the "home market") principally airs one particular franchise's games? I must reiterate that a local viewer usually week in and week not, is only allowed (unless otherwise) to see the teams from their home market. Yeah, the NFL may control the TV inventory but they're still divvied up region to region. BornonJune8 (talk) 07:25, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's a lot of things that are of value to people that don't belong on Wikipedia. There is a policy that outlines Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, and I believe specifically 2.6 Wikipedia is not a directory applies here. I must admit I'm not sure what it means to "come across quite subjective" but that seems to be a personal attack, albiet a lighter one. However, a weak personal attack is still wrong. Please limit your comments to the matter at hand rather than the person making them.--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:45, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator and Paulmcdonald's well reasoned rationale. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:15, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete references about this are extremely lacking and it's not very clear what a "primary NFL television station" is. Maybe the article could be refocused solely on stations which are a team's official pre-season and other programming partner per Mrschimpf, but I feel like whoever wants to undertake that endeavor should do so by creating a new article. As I don't think the current one could be adapted to a new direction well enough to justify keeping it and just changing what it's about. More so because there's a good chance that whatever comes out of the new direction likely wouldn't be notable or workable either. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:17, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @Adamant1: To clarify, a "Primary NFL television station" is in essence, the station that would more than likely be the first choice to broadcast a specific team's games in your home market. To give you a better idea, KTVU, the owned and operated Fox affiliate in the San Francisco Bay Area is the designated or de facto "home station" for the San Francisco 49ers. And when CBS previously held the NFC package prior to 1994, KPIX would've been the 49ers' "home station". In other words, if you're going to see one NFL game on Sunday, then you're local affiliate will all but be guaranteed to air the game that the team that's based in region is playing in. This article in particular, explains in detail, how the National Football League and TV networks such as Fox and CBS decide what football games you’ll see each Sunday. The article clearly uses the term "home market station" when describing Denver's Fox affiliate. Here's another article that explains how the NFL decides which games will be shown to your local market such as the Dallas Cowboys games. Each national football league team on their official websites have a section concentrating on their TV network. For example, here's the one for the Las Vegas Raiders. BornonJune8 (talk) 9:32. 24 January 2022 (UTC)
  - @Gonzo fan2007: This article also clearly states in the second bullet-pointed paragraph that WLUK-TV in Green Bay, Wisconsin is the home market station for the Green Bay Packers. And here's an article from 1999 that goes into the complications over how a hypothetical move of the New England Patriots to Hartford, Connecticut would directly impact to local broadcasting of the New York Giants and Jets games. This article also goes into the mapped process of how Fox and CBS assign different games to different markets based on both national and regional interests. BornonJune8 (talk) 9:55. 24 January 2022 (UTC)
    - BornonJune8 did you mean to ping me, or someone else? Not sure how this comment responds to anything I said. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:53, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      - I suspect a ping to @Adamant1 was intended. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 19:29, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks for the details. I figured that's what it means, but the fact that you said they are "more than likely" to be the first choice to broadcast a specific team's games in your home market makes me think it's not cut and dry enough to make an article based purely on the concept a reliable source for information about it. Not big deal if the home market thing is mentioned in the individual television stations articles though. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:51, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      - @Adamant1: This is what the article for WLUK-TV in Green Bay, Wisconsin itself says under "As a Fox affiliate": "Because of Fox's 1994 acquisition of television rights to the NFL's National Football Conference, the switch made WLUK the unofficial "home" station of the Green Bay Packers after years on WBAY (and two years on WFRV), which became a major ratings draw (during the 1994 season, WGBA was the station of record for the Packers). Since channel 11 joined Fox, Packer football games have routinely drawn an 80% share of the viewing audience – far and away the highest-rated programs in the market, and through Fox's NFL rights deal, the station has broadcast two of the three Super Bowl games the Packers have appeared in, both victories, since 1994; Super Bowls XXXI and XLV, both by far the highest-rated programs in the Green Bay market's history." And please don't twist or take out of context what I said when I said "more than likely". What I mean is that of course, not all of the Packers games for example, are expected to solely air on Fox, but a majority of their games would air on it since Fox is the current NFC network. BornonJune8 (talk) 1:17. 25 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't really have anything more to say about this. Except the fact that they are "unofficial" home stations doesn't sell me on this anymore then your "more then likely" comment does. The fact that they aren't official and being added to a list like they are just comes off like OR. The whole "majority of games" thing is rather meaningless of criteria also. There's nothing particularly special or notable about a television station that airs more sports games then another one. That's just how broadcasting works. It isn't a defining characteristic of any of the television stations either. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:52, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The point of a Fox station airing most of the games for a football team in their home market is obvious; that they're a major ratings draw and nobody's watching...say, infomercials or some random movie on WACY-TV at the same time because of the NFL's overwhelming popularity. Though it is a feature of the station for sure, the majority home station relationship isn't the same thing as an 'official team' station relationship unless they have both deals, and unlike that contract, can be moved or taken away with an affiliation or rights package change by the league or a network, as it will with Amazon grabbing Thursday Night Football next year. Listing stations in the markets of NFL teams that have ever carried an NFL game is in the end, a meaningless characteristic, because unless a station has an irrational hate for professional football (or for the Monday Night package, needs to give it to another station because of airing Dancing with the Stars or The Bachelor(ette)), they always carry those games because the network requires them to and viewers would think they're idiotic for not doing so. It's something that doesn't really need an article call-out. Nate • (chatter) 06:21, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Adamant1: Since I previously mentioned KTVU, this is how its Wiki article describes its involvement with the broadcast of 49ers games, for what it's worth, under "Sports programming": "KTVU has also served as the market's primary official television broadcaster of the San Francisco 49ers since 1994, when Fox assumed the contractual rights to air games from the National Football Conference (NFC). The station airs most of the team's regular-season and playoff games that do not have rights held by other broadcast networks (primarily those involving the 49ers' in-conference opponents), as well as another 49ers-related programming during the NFL season including the pre-game show 49ers Pre Game Live (on Sunday mornings), the weekly station-produced sports program KTVU Mercedes-Benz Sports Weekend (on Saturday evenings), magazine program 49ers Total Access (which follows Sports Wrap on Sunday evenings) and the 49ers Red & Gold Specials (comprising four programs focusing on the 49ers' history that air on either KTVU or KICU during the team's training camp and/or preseason).[43][44] The station aired the team's appearance in Super Bowl LIV. KTVU also airs most Las Vegas Raiders games (a holdover from when the team played in Oakland) in which the team plays host to an NFC team at Allegiant Stadium and starting in 2014, when the NFL instituted its new 'cross-flex' broadcast rules, any Raiders game involving another AFC team that is moved from KPIX to KTVU." Like I said prior, just about every single station on the Primary NFL TV station list has a summary of sorts explaining its broadcast relationship with the NFL franchise in its market. BornonJune8 (talk) 7:57, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

@Mrschimpf: Comparing Thursday Night Football with Fox's Sunday afternoon telecasts is at least in my personal estimation, apples and oranges, since naturally, there are more games that need to be covered all at once on Sunday afternoons when compared to a separate prime time package like the Thursday night one. Bringing up Amazon is in itself a bit of a reach if you ask me, since Amazon is a streaming service, that doesn't have affiliated stations like a linear television network such as Fox. Simply put, how can you compare a national broadcast like Thursday Night Football with a regional one? There's a lengthy breakdown in the National Football League on television article about how Sunday regional games work. That same article mind you, also has a section explaining what a "Primary market" is. Also, give me at least one example of a station that bypassed NFL games in-favor infomericals or a random movie despite their affiliated network having a contract to broadcast NFL games. With all due respect, the last time that I checked, your Fox or CBS affiliated network airs NFL games because the networks themselves have multi-billion dollar contracts with the National Football League. WJBK, the main Fox affiliate in Detroit is presumably, going to air a lot of Lions games week in and week out since the "powers that be" figure that those would logically be the games with the most inherent local interest, thus would in return, draw in the biggest ratings for said station/market. Again, you can you compare Sunday afternoon games with prime-time programming like Dancing with the Stars and The Bachelor(ette), which doesn't even air on Fox or CBS, the current NFC and AFC networks. And you also can't just say that all that a person needs to know is that CBS airs the AFC package and Fox airs the NFC package without any additional details. Isn't for instance KTVU, by default or design, the 'official team' station for the San Francisco 49ers since Fox is the NFC network and that's the station that its fanbase would immediately turn to first? And bringing up the Green Bay station WACY-TV almost in my mind, constitutes being a "slippery slope". In other words, you might as well say that how can the main Fox station in Green Bay, WLUK-TV be the "home station" for the Packers when virtually every TV station in Green Bay, Wisconsin covers the Packers in some shape or form? BornonJune8 (talk) 8:13, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Comment Please stop bludgening the discussion with long paragraphs. I have no plans to read these walls of completely unrelated information because at this point you're just belaboring a rationale of the article being useful, when it's just extraneous information altogether that belongs in another form off this site. Nate • (chatter) 23:28, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mrschimpf: You're pretty much in this regard, choosing the completely ignore the points that I have to make simply because you feel that I make long paragraphs. It's incredibly difficult for me to properly explain my own point in two or three sentences. Why can't you take the time to try to listen to an opposing view or rationale instead of criticizing the manner of which they need to explain themselves? You can't realistically get into a debate or personal disagreement with somebody and act like you have no plans on reading what the opposing party has to say in response. And what exactly is the "completely unrelated information" that you're referring to? I had attempted to address the best way that I could your early point about Thursday Night Football games coming to Amazon and your comments about the Green Bay television market. So I don't know exactly what you're asking for. And again, who ultimately says or determines that it's just and conclusively "extraneous information", when as I previously said, the articles for the TV stations themselves all but acknowledge the NFL association? The National Football League on television article under "Shared media markets" clearly acknowledges several of the stations in the Primary NFL TV stations article. BornonJune8 (talk) 10:26, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WABBITSEASON the arguments have been made and editors do not have to agree on everything. If there are further points to add, feel free--otherwise please let the closer review and make the call. This will help to avoid falling into any personal attacks and remain WP:CIVIL.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:34, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator and all above. Spf121188 (talk) 21:10, 26 January 2022 (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 Dangal (soundtrack)#Track listing. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🎉 _{(HAPPY 2022)} 04:15, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Naina (song)

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

The songs lacks notability independently. All the mentions of the song in reliable sources are passing mentions, because the song is part of Dangal movie. Hence it fails WP:NSONG, which states Coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability. It further fails all the requirements described in WP:SONG. Also, it clearly fails WP:GNG —usernamekiran • sign the guestbook • (talk) 03:25, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —usernamekiran • sign the guestbook • (talk) 03:25, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —usernamekiran • sign the guestbook • (talk) 03:25, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dangal (soundtrack). Does not meet WP:NSONG on its own. -- Ab207 (talk) 10:25, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dangal (soundtrack). Fails WP:NSONG per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 02:34, 22 January 2022 (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: wrong venue. (non-admin closure) Lennart97 (talk) 11:52, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why Wikipedia Sucks

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

Criticizing Wikipedia for Unknown reasons. QuantumSciDude (talk) 01:47, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 January 20. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:17, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close. Wrong venue; this belongs in WP:RfD. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:00, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:22, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:22, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Close - I second this. I'd also vote keep at that venue, for what it's worth. I wouldn't mind being pinged if it's nominated there. Fieari (talk) 06:34, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @Fieari: It was already nominated at RfD a few days ago, discussion is ongoing at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2022_January_16#Why_Wikipedia_Sucks. Lennart97 (talk) 11:52, 20 January 2022 (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 03:00, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Traci Hovel

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

Was unilaterally redirected to What Would You Do? (2008 TV program) by the article creator Some Dude From North Carolina (talk · contribs), but given the long list of (mostly minor) roles, the redirect target is probably inappropriate, and deletion may be required if she fails WP:NACTOR and cannot be redirected to What Would You Do? –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 02:16, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 02:16, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 02:16, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 02:16, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 03:11, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – notability under WP:BASIC not demonstrated as there is merely one secondary sources at the article (which I can't access, but assume is just passing coverage anyway). Additionally, I don't believe the subject meets WP:NACTOR either. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:17, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Chinese unification. Consensus is that this is an aspect of the topic Chinese unification and should be covered there (in a WP:DUE manner), if at all. Sandstein 10:46, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Liberation of Taiwan

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

POV fork of Chinese unification. LondonIP (talk) 01:39, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:51, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:51, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 January 20. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:52, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This nomination was malformed, and should be fixed now. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 02:18, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 02:19, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep we should not rush to delete stubs simply because they are stubs, the term was an official policy of China for a period and so is not a POV Fork as you claim it is. Xoltered (talk) 05:07, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Chinese unification where more editors will see it and a more balanced article may result. A1415 (talk) 08:19, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If it is to be merged, then we should have a specific section regarding the old policy. Xoltered (talk) 01:09, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge fails WP:GNG as far as I can tell. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:05, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Chinese unification, unless someone can find sources showing that the term itself is notable separately from the overall topic. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 21:34, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The zh and ja articles are much more in depth. Possible room for expansion? Jumpytoo Talk 01:59, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing that out. The zh.wikipedia article seems to be about the concept of the Chinese government taking over Taiwan using military force, which would be a subtopic of Chinese unification. I think that can work as a standalone article. I'm not sure whether or not this is the best title for it. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 19:31, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of The Amazing World of Gumball episodes#Darwin's Yearbook. Should editors decide additional content is needed that is not currently present in the target article, they are free to obtain it from this page's history. ✗plicit 03:07, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Darwin's Yearbook

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

I made this article two years ago with little understanding of WP:GNG and MOS:TV. Now, I can see that it is not notable. It was not reviewed by critics and is essentially a clip show. I suggest deletion or redirecting to List of The Amazing World of Gumball episodes. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 01:41, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 01:42, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 01:42, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 01:42, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 01:42, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect assuming absence of nontrivial coverage other than production, which is already covered by The Amazing World of Gumball article. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 01:49, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, or merge and redirect if there is any unique content here. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:14, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to The Amazing World of Gumball since stand-alone notability is not estabilished. Thank you for "self-reporting", if you are the main contributor, you could just WP:BEBOLD and carry out the merge without AfD. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:31, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:05, 20 January 2022 (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 03:13, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agent Orange (cocktail)

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

I found no significant coverage for this drink. SL93 (talk) 00:56, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 00:56, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
comment Recipes in books of cocktails are numerous (at least from 2000 on; I didn't try to force a search for earlier dates) but I don't know whether we consider that sufficient. Mangoe (talk) 04:59, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Based on below, I'm going for delete, as this doesn't seem to have much meaningful discussion. Mangoe (talk) 04:56, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I searched up "Agent Orange drink" and it seemed to show a few recipes and this Wikipedia article. That doesn't necessarily make up if their will be unsourced statements in this article. I abstain at the moment however. SoyokoAnis - talk 13:26, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:20, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yes, there are lots of recipes online but in my judgment, recipes alone do not make a food or a beverage notable. Wikipedia is not a "how to" manual. Significant coverage in reliable sources is required. Another problem is that there are really three topics (separate cocktails) here. One is based on vodka, orange juice and orange liqueurs. Another is based on whiskey, orange juice and orange liqueurs. The third is based on vodka and carrot juice. In other words, a non-notable mess. Cullen328 (talk) 03:20, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Cullen328's points. Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 22:12, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:20, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Atsuki Mashiko

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

Does not meet WP:ENTERTAINER notability guidelines. RegistryKey^(RegEdit) 00:55, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. RegistryKey^(RegEdit) 00:55, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Simply does not meet the notability criteria for people per WP:BASIC - no substantial independent coverage. Per WP:NACTOR there is no significant involvement in multiple notable productions, nor has this subject made any special contributions to entertainment. This article ought to be deleted. Such-change47 (talk) 01:44, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:50, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Severe storm 28 01:57, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:29, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:29, 20 January 2022 (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 nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) HurricaneEdgar 01:36, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Finn Tearney

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

Not notable. A tennis player can be notable if the player wins at least one ATP Challenger title, but Finn Tearney hasn't won a Challenger title yet. Severe storm 28 01:28, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Withdrawn by nominator" Tearney has competed in one ATP 250 tournament. Severe storm 28 01:32, 20 January 2022 (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.

[1] You Are Here. "7,830,041 views", Retrieved on 1/22/2022

[2] Slightly Offensive. "40,176,703 views", Retrieved on 1/22/2022

[3] EXCLUSIVE: Elijah Schaffer Interviews Alleged Kenosha Shooter Before Shooting [1],

[4] Twitter Status, [2]

[5] Tucker Carlson and Elijah Schaffer explore what really happened on Jan 6 [3]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]