Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 August 10

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< August 09 August 11 >

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. RL0919 (talk) 00:49, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

British Mediterranean Airways Flight 6711

British Mediterranean Airways Flight 6711 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Well-written article, but almost all primary sourcing. The one independent source appears to be about the same incident, but lists a different flight #KJ-7611, not sure if that is a typo, or an alternate flight #. Regardless, there is not enough in-depth coverage to show that it passes

WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 14:45, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 14:45, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:54, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethiopia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:54, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Agree that the article is well written but the subject matter is hardly notable: a disaster that never happened, albeit narrowly, and without apparently lasting consequences. The safety recommendations were not even adopted, and there seem to be no sources subsequently referring to the event in relation to regulatory changes, lasting impact etc. --Deeday-UK (talk) 08:30, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question @Onel5969: - which are the primary sources used in the article? Mjroots (talk) 16:17, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Mjroots, all but the one trade magazine piece. Onel5969 TT me 16:27, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • @
        WP:RS. Mjroots (talk) 16:36, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
        ]
        • Mjroots, The article is about an accident, not an airline. Those investigative agencies are primary for accident/incidents. Never said AH was not an RS. Onel5969 TT me 16:40, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Scary, but no injuries or damage. No lasting coverage of this, just a safety inquiry.--Chuka Chieftalk 14:25, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 20:40, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:57, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment We're approaching the end of the latest 7-day extension of this AFD and while I reviewed the original nomination and did not find a reason to oppose this deletion nomination, I have just become aware of the recent edits by Whoop whoop pull up and would like to request a simple 24-hour extension to review the subject of the article. Pretty please. RecycledPixels (talk) 08:38, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails
    WP:RS. RecycledPixels (talk) 20:48, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. No fault whatsoever on the nominator from my perspective, this course of action was explicitly allowed from th previous AfD. However, this AfD shows this will need some time and space before it comes back here, if at all. Daniel (talk) 07:16, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

John Raymond Evelyn Stansfeld

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

Was deprodded with the rationale, "already some okay sourcing, perhaps could be improved?" That "okay sourcing" consists of 3, listings, a primary source, and 3 non-reliable sources. Fails

WP:NOTMEMORIAL. The recent AfD was closed as no consensus, but I welcome !voters to read the closing admin's comments. None of the sourcing provided from independent sources is in-depth. The Times obit is a short blurb, along with dozens, if not hundreds of other similar blurbs regarding war dead. And that is the best of the sourcing. Onel5969 TT me 23:53, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 23:53, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:57, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 01:04, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 01:04, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Onel5969 What is your problem? I'm not very experienced user but i know that AfD is not a weapon. This AfD is consensus after three times relisted. The AfD has been closed for less than 24 hours. You should wait at least 7 days (or one month) to open new afD. You are a strong delete voter from previous AfD and you didn't accept your loss. What is the community value of these AfDs? Why people are using AfD as a Weapon ?
    WP:IDONTLIKE is everywhere. Shame on you. VocalIndia (talk) 02:53, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • VocalIndia the closer stated: "I am closing this as "no consensus", explicitly with no prejudice towards speedy renomination." which is exactly what Curbon7 onel5969 is doing here. Mztourist (talk) 03:02, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not think this makes sense according to my experience on Wikipedia. I do not oppose to delete this article in the future but he should wait at least 7 days. Thanks VocalIndia (talk) 03:11, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mztourist, not me, I didn't do anything... Curbon7 (talk) 05:16, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the previous closer's statement that "I am unaware of any convention that the mere existence of an obituary grants notability, and in the absence of written guidelines saying as much, that argument contributes nothing to consensus in either direction." WP:SOLDIER was deprecated several months ago and is irrelevant. Mztourist (talk) 08:24, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The previous AfD was closed yesterday (with the comment "I could relist this discussion, but it is has already become quite unpleasant") after being relisted twice. How on earth is another AfD appropriate? This is just effectively yet another relisting which will probably also lead to unpleasantness, which makes no sense at all. Also, given the opinions expressed by a clear majority (7 to 2) in the discussion it should blatantly have been closed as a keep, not a no consensus - such a large majority cannot legitimately be brushed off without appearing to supervote. But I shall repeat exactly what I said the first time. An obituary in The Times (or another major national newspaper of record) has always been considered sufficient for notability. This consensus has been established over many AfDs and many years. The other sources, especially Who's Who, merely add to
    WP:GNG. Given this opinion has been attacked by those who are clearly incapable of being civil if their desire to delete, delete, delete, is challenged, and doubtless will be again, I have no real desire to enter into any further discussion about this, but my opinion stands. But just to reiterate, I believe a re-nomination so quickly is completely against the spirit of Wikipedia and an undermining of our processes. -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:25, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The closer clearly does not agree with your assertion that any such consensus exists, stating clearly: "I am unaware of any convention that the mere existence of an obituary grants notability, and in the absence of written guidelines saying as much, that argument contributes nothing to consensus in either direction." Mztourist (talk) 08:24, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The closer's opinion is irrelevant. They are a closer, not a contributor to the discussion. Their opinion bears no more weight than any other contributor's. Their job is to weigh up the opinions of those who took part, not to state their own opinion. If they wanted to do that they should have contributed to the discussion, not closed it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:44, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You need to reread Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How an AfD discussion is closed, specifically "Consensus is not based on a tally of votes, but on reasonable, logical, policy-based arguments." I would expect any closing Admin to explain their No Consensus close and consider policy based arguments while dismissing non-policy based arguments, as was done here. The Admin clearly and correctly stated that there is no policy or guideline that an obituary grants notability; this is not an opinion, it is a statement of fact. Mztourist (talk) 12:52, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not a policy or guideline, but a consensus. Previous consensus and precedent is important at AfD and cannot just be dismissed out of hand. You know this as well as I do. However, as I have already said, you're not going to agree with me and I'm not going to agree with you, so it's pointless bickering. Just state your opinion and I'll state mine. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:28, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The closer specifically rejected any such convention, saying that in the absence of a written guideline it contributed nothing, so please stop raising it, especially as Stansfeld's Times entry isn't even an obituary. Mztourist (talk) 17:11, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. Thanks to some of you for proving your desperation to delete this page. Doesn;t repeated attempts to delete this page look a bit strange?... is this a hatred of me personally, the pages I've created, the Stansfeld surname or what?

Please explain - because if you're all going to do this then at least have the decency to state outright what all the hatred is about.

Because I don't believe it's all just about the sources.

I've seen plenty of other wikipedia pages with similar or worse references yet no whiff of deletion anywhere in sight let alone repeated attempts at deletion.

I'd already predicted this kind of hatred - which is probably why no-one's bothered to try to work on all the Stanfield/Stansfeld/Stansfield pages before. Somehow I suspect that even if someone comes along with more sources - it'll still be deleted no matter what.

Do I really have to repeat everything I said on the first deletion page?

There's a range of sources for John R E Stansfeld's page: Who's Who (apparently only semi-notable?), DSO (a semi-notable decoration?), obituary in The Times (only semi-notable?), other newspaper reports (apparently only semi-notable?). But how many 'semi-notable' sources are needed to add-up to being 'notable'?

A bit bored having to repeat everything again. But that's the point isn't it - keep nominating it for deletion until everyone's bored and the deleters can outvote the keepers. I still vote to keep.

Hiltpriam (talk) 09:05, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hiltpriam: I don't think it's anything personal against you. There is a long-term struggle on Wikipedia between those who wish to delete anything they do not see as exceptionally notable and those who wish to keep anything that is not clearly completely non-notable. Both think they are serving the encyclopaedia best and neither will be swayed by the others' arguments. Your article just happens to have got caught up in it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:53, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BASIC. If you take this personally then you can either actually retire or work on pages where notability is not disputed (i.e. not your family). Mztourist (talk) 13:10, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
@Hiltpriam: Wikipedia is not fair sometime because of bullying editors. If you don't have many knowledge of Wikipedia notability guidelines, sure they will bullying you or newbies with their knowledge. I was also one of their victims. Now I am not afraid 😇 VocalIndia (talk) 17:05, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with your analysis on sources that they are "self serving" not our's. VocalIndia (talk) 17:09, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Source assessment table:
Source
Independent?
 Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward
GNG
?
https://archive.org/details/historyoffamilyo00stan No COI publication No family publication Yes The source discusses the subject directly and in detail ✘ No
https://www.rutlandremembers.org/fallen/718/stansfeld-lieutenant-colonel-john-raymond-evelyn Yes not related to family No user-generated Yes more than a trivial mention ✘ No
COMMANDER OF THE 2ND GORDONS (Times Obit) ? newspaper with editorial oversight, but unclear whether this was an obit written by staff ? same as above No just one of many blurbs of the war dead, using this as a rationale for inclusion would mean that the thousands of war dead who appeared in Times papers during the war years would all be notable. ✘ No
http://www.dunninald.com/ww1-christmas-truce.html Yes non-related to the family No no editorial oversight No not about the subject, but by the subject ✘ No
https://www.google.com/books/edition/Christmas_Truce_by_the_Men_Who_Took_Part/opsXEAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=John+Raymond+Evelyn+Stansfeld&pg=PT242 Yes non-related to the family No no editorial oversight, letters are simply published No not about the subject, but by the subject ✘ No
https://www.soldiersofthequeen.com/SouthAfrica-JohnRaymondEvelynStansfeld.html Yes non-related to the family No no editorial oversight, user generated content Yes not about the subject, but by the subject ✘ No
https://www.ukwhoswho.com/view/10.1093/ww/9780199540891.001.0001/ww-9780199540884-e-191178 Yes non-related to the family Yes no editorial oversight, user generated content No simple blurb, Who's Who is not the Dictionary of National Biography ✘ No
https://kirkbymalham.info/KMI/malhamdale/servicemen/jrestansfield.html Yes non-related to the family No no editorial oversight Yes in-depth about his military service ✘ No
https://cpgw.org.uk/soldier-records/john-raymond-evelyn-stansfield/ Yes non-related to the family No information provided by users, no evidence of editorial oversight Yes in-depth about his military service ✘ No
https://www.scotsman.com/arts-and-culture/scot-who-led-troops-battle-loos-remembered-1997681 ? while the paper is independent, this article is based solely on information and quotes provided by the family No information provided by users, no evidence of editorial oversight Yes in-depth about his military service ✘ No
https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp/news/aberdeen/280838/wwi-treasure-trove-of-gordon-highlander-momentos-opens-to-public-for-first-time/ Yes the paper is independent Yes reliable paper No article is about the exhibit, which was a memorial by the family, not about the man ✘ No
https://www.cwgc.org/find-records/find-war-dead/casualty-details/167193/STANSFELD,%20JOHN%20RAYMOND%20EVELYN/ Yes government database Yes government source No simple listing ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

References

  • Keep 1. He has an entry in UK Who's Who:
    WP:ANYBIO
    states that "3. The person has an entry in a country's standard national biographical dictionary (e.g. the Dictionary of National Biography)." this links to the Biographical Dictionary article which states that a "biographical dictionary is a type of encyclopedic dictionary limited to biographical information. Many attempt to cover the major personalities of a country (with limitations, such as living persons only, in Who's Who, or deceased people only, in the Dictionary of National Biography). Others are specialized, in that they cover important names in a subject field, such as architecture or engineering."

UK Who's Who is one of the recommended sources provided to editors by the Wikipedia Library https://wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org/partners/76

2. He has an obituary in The Times, the UK's newspaper of record. According to the Commonwealth War Graves Commission over 1100 allied soldiers were reported dead on 28th September 1915, so it's unsurprising that little space was given to Stansfeld but his obituary's length would be at a guess in the top 1% in length of all the soldiers reported in the Times that day.

3. There were obituaries in the London Daily News - Thursday 14 October 1915 https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0003212/19151014/081/0005, the Army and Navy Gazette - Saturday 16 October 1915 https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0001394/19151016/049/0013, and Truth - Wednesday 20 October 1915 https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0002961/19151020/023/0006 All mention that at aged 19 he was awarded the DSO, at the time the youngest officer to receive the award. He was also awarded the Sandhurst Sword of Honour https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Military_Academy_Sandhurst#Sword_of_Honour They also reported that he was the Army and Navy heavyweight boxing champion, the semi-final and final were covered at the time in the Sporting Life - Saturday 26 September 1903 https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0000893/19030926/117/0006

4. Further obituaries were published in amongst others The Scotsman - Monday 04 October 1915 https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0000540/19151004/068/0010, the Dundee Evening Telegraph - Monday 04 October 1915 https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0000563/19151004/017/0002, the Aberdeen Weekly Journal - Friday 08 October 1915 https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0000573/19151008/120/0007, Grantham Journal - Saturday 09 October 1915 https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0000400/19151009/043/0002 the Montrose, Arbroath and Brechin review - Friday 08 October 1915 https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0001421/19151008/072/0005 the latter reported that his right leg was amputated just prior to his death. His death was also reported in the Illustrated London News on Saturday 30 October 1915 with a prominent photograph https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0001578/19151030/069/0019

5. His memorial service was reported in The Scotsman - Monday 18 October 1915 https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0000540/19151018/268/0007, the Daily Record - Monday 18 October 1915 https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0000728/19151018/105/0003, the Aberdeen Press and Journal - Monday 18 October 1915 (with photo) https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0000576/19151018/005/0003 the Dundee Courier - Monday 18 October 1915 https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0000164/19151018/030/0004, Broad Arrow - Friday 22 October 1915 https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0000587/19151022/048/0014, the Montrose Standard - Friday 22 October 1915 https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0002751/19151022/057/0005 and the Montrose, Arbroath and Brechin review https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0001421/19151022/114/0006 Piecesofuk (talk) 13:22, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1. Who's who is not the country's "standard national biographical dictionary" as required by #3 of
WP:ANYBIO which is specifically stated to be the Dictionary of National Biography
2. The Times entry is not an Obituary because its not a news article, rather it is details provided by his family.
3-5 Can't read what they say. Mztourist (talk) 17:18, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As stated above Who's Who is not the DNB as it's a biographical dictionary of notable living people Piecesofuk (talk) 18:43, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand your comment, you say he has an entry in Who's Who, but you also say that Who's Who is a "biographical dictionary of notable living people" so which is it? He is dead. All the other sources are "obituaries" but I assume (as I can't access them) they're actually just death notices/listings, not obituaries which are news articles, so would add nothing to notability. Mztourist (talk) 05:29, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Who's Who has been published in its current form annually since 1897 and only contains living people. However, all those with entries who had since died (and therefore been removed from the annual version) were collected every ten years or so into a volume entitled Who Was Who. This meant that libraries (and in pre-internet times almost every public library in the UK held it, as it is the UK's standard biographical reference work) only had to keep ten years' worth of volumes, plus the Who Was Who series. The online version, however, includes everyone who has ever been in Who's Who and is therefore a biographical dictionary of both living and dead people. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:36, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure when he was originally included in Who's Who but he was in the 1914 edition which is on archive.org https://archive.org/details/whoswho1914001352mbp/page/n2015/mode/1up. Piecesofuk (talk) 11:02, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
#3 of
WP:ANYBIO clearly identifies the Dictionary of National Biography as the country's standard national biographical dictionary, not Who's Who. Mztourist (talk) 11:56, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
They are both standard reference works in the UK. They serve entirely different purposes. The DNB is an historical biographical dictionary that only covers dead people and is very selective (far more so than similar works in countries with considerably smaller populations and much shorter histories like Australia, Canada and New Zealand, which we also consider to meet ANYBIO #3). WW covers only living people (although those who were selected while alive remain on the online version and in Who Was Who), and is much less selective (although it only covers people who were seen as notable in their day). Wikipedia, of course, is somewhere in between: far less selective than the DNB, but generally more selective than WW. Having a WW entry does not guarantee WP notability, but it's certainly an important contributing factor. Being selected (and one does not apply or pay to be included) indicates that the editors considered the individual to be notable, just like having an obituary in a major newspaper indicates that the editors considered the individual to be notable. Wikipedia, on the other hand, has a tendency to be somewhat biased in favour of modern pop culture figures, many of whom probably wouldn't qualify for either a WW entry or an obit in a major newspaper. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:40, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As I said above, #3 of ANYBIO clearly identifies the Dictionary of National Biography as the country's standard national biographical dictionary. As you acknowledge DNB "is very selective" and so if someone is in there then they are deemed notable. If they're in Who's Who #3 of ANYBIO isn't satisfied. Mztourist (talk) 07:56, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Dictionary of National Biography is clearly used as an example. ANYBIO does not say it is the only valid source.
talk) 08:04, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
"the country's standard national biographical dictionary" is singular and DNB is given as the specific example for the UK. Mztourist (talk) 03:32, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously we'll have to agree to disagree here as we both interpret the wording differently.
talk) 06:56, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
The London Daily News obituary is headlined "WON DSO AT 19", with a subheading "Notable Career of Colonel who Has Died of Wounds" and contains four paragraphs outlining his career from Sandhurst to the South African war and his army career in the 1900s in Egypt and India, so it's not just a death notice. Piecesofuk (talk) 11:08, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As with the Times "obituary" would need to see it to form a view on whether or not its a news article or just something provided by his family. Mztourist (talk) 11:56, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There's no evidence that the Times obituary was provided by the family; it doesn't come from his Who's Who entry as there are more specifics over his medals and his military career Piecesofuk (talk) 12:33, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There's no evidence that the Times "obituary" is a news article written by a Times journalist. At the top of column 3 it states "the Times would be obliged if relatives of officers who fall in service of the country would forward with the intimation of death any biographical details in their possession", so it is likely that the information was provided by his family. Mztourist (talk) 07:56, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree. And
    WP:Preserve
    .
Article is not what it was when nominated for deletion for the 2nd time.
WP:HEY. The issue is this article; the Slippery slope argument is fallacious and irrelevant. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:39, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Mztourist and Sansten ကိုမေကလိူးတွေလီးပဲ ငါလိုးမသား နမလိုးတွေ ဖေတရာလိုး ခွေးလိုးမသား ဖာသေမသားတွေ ? pls 117.18.228.203 (talk) 20:32, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
btw i forget Vanamonde93 မင်းလဲ မင်း အမေ စောင်ပန်ကြီး ပြန် လိုးနေ ငါလိုးမသား? 😌 117.18.228.203 (talk) 20:50, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what that means even with Google Translate and question why you choose not to write in English as you did earlier. Mztourist (talk) 06:17, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on

"soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 04:20, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Ranjita Jena

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

Bio of a recently deceased writer. Two of the three sources provided won’t render on Google translate and the third is an interview which doesn’t establish notability. There’s no or.wiki article to look at for sources and a search of her name in Oriya doesn’t pull up anything that looks like RIS to me. I sent it to draft hoping the sourcing would be improved but it’s been moved back into mainspace without any additional work. Based on what I can find this does not appear to pass

WP:AUTHOR. Mccapra (talk) 17:11, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 17:11, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 17:11, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 17:11, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:56, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:56, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- DaxServer (talk) 22:32, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Does anyone have any idea about the significance of the award? Agreed that no sources seem to be accessible. Furius (talk) 11:24, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 20:43, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:47, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. None of the "keep" voters were able to analyze the sources which make the article pass

(non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 02:00, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Maureen Holloway

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

primary sources self-published by her own employers or organizations that she was directly affiliated with as a patron, which are not support for notability at all, and two more are unrecoverable dead links -- and of the just two sources that are both reliable and readable, both are local coverage in her own media market, and one isn't about her in any substantive or notability-supporting way, but just briefly quotes her as a giver of soundbite in an article about the phenomenon of radio personalities taking time off. So there's only one source that's actually contributing toward notability at all, and that's not enough. Bearcat (talk) 20:13, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:13, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:13, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:24, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I just had to click on the links above and enough sources popped up to convince me this person is sufficiently notable to meet
    WP:GNG. WCMemail 09:40, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
You appear to just be counting text matches, and not actually applying the critical filters necessary to determine whether any given hit actually represents notability-building coverage or not. For instance, she gets just 16 hits total in the Google News search, of which:
  1. several are press releases self-published by her own employers ([1], [2], [3], [4]), which aren't notability-making sources as they aren't independent of her;
  2. many are glancing namechecks of her existence in coverage of other people (she is not, for instance, the subject of [5], [6], [7], [8], [9] or [10] in any notability-building way just because her name happens to appear in them);
  3. several are purely coincidental name matches on different people who aren't this Maureen Holloway (she is not, for instance, the Maureen Holloway named in [11], or [12] or [13]);
  4. the only three legitimately useful sources out of those 16 are two short same-day blurbs announcing her hiring for a job ([14], [15]), both from limited circulation industry trade publications, and one source ([16]) that was already addressed in my nomination statement because it's already in this article — and absolutely none of them are substantive enough to bring the GNG in and of themselves if they're the best sources that can be found.
So no, there aren't enough sources to meet GNG, if most of the sources that actually turn up are either unusable or irrelevant and the few acceptable ones aren't adequate. Bearcat (talk) 11:59, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You presume, incorrectly, what I did, I checked for sources about this individual. I found enough to convince me that
WP:GNG was satisfied. I would suggest that you allow others to comment. WCMemail 12:36, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
I didn't "presume" anything you didn't say — you explicitly said that you saw GNG-worthy coverage in the "look for sources" links in the nomination header, and I responded with an assessment of what those same links actually produce. Firstly, it isn't enough to say you found GNG-worthy coverage — you have to show actual, concrete examples of what you perceive to be GNG-worthy hits, precisely because not every Google hit that exists is necessarily always a viable or useful or reliable or GNG-worthy source. And secondly, responding to a comment is in no way whatsoever a failure to "allow others to comment". Bearcat (talk) 12:52, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Gosh - 168 hits on Proquest - many are trivial, but I didn't look too far. I added a GNG one from 2015 in the Sudbury Star. Given no one has added any references in over a decade, shouldn't be difficult to find more. Nfitz (talk) 00:16, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets
    WP:GNG per WCM's argument. SBKSPP (talk) 01:00, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For further analysis of the sources v GNG.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 20:51, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:46, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Military aircraft insignia. ✗plicit 23:45, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fin flash

Fin flash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
What I'm getting from
WP:Indiscriminate collection of information of (at best) dubious provenance. Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:02, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:02, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:02, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:02, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Merge book / delete author.

The Third Terrorist

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

As part of a major revamp of

WND (which was involved in the book's publication and apparently split from the publisher
mid-process), or are actually letters to the editor.

I do not believe that the author is independently notable, either, and nominate her for deletion:

Jayna Davis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 22:38, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 22:38, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 22:38, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 22:38, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 22:39, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 22:39, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm running into the same issue. There's some mild mention in relation to the politician using it in her report but not any coverage for the book itself. I'm leaning towards deletion, given that there's not really anything major out there about the book. No opinion on the author, but if she's deemed notable I'd recommend a selective merge in her article. The book article definitely needs some serious pruning. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 00:28, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: My stance on both articles is pretty much dependent on if there's a way to get more reliable sources. Chances are it's difficult because of the book promulgating a conspiracy theory, thus making it very difficult for any serious mainstream coverage... which may also be highly negative to begin with. If it's possible, then I'm keep, otherwise I'm in favor of delete. Nathan Obral • he/him • t • c • 19:36, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral: but if deleted merge with Oklahoma City bombing conspiracy theories. -47.33.186.77 (talk) 17:19, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 11:17, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - part of the problem here is
    WP:BEFORE
    because any diligent editor conducting a search is likely to hit the same wall I did; that a search for "the third terrorist" inevitably brings up myriad sources that reference other events that involve more than two terrorists, such that one is described as "the third terrorist". But I managed to find the following:
I'm not entirely convinced. I guess I'm defaulting to inclusionism because multiple, independent sources have referenced the work long after it was created, and not in sensationalist terms. They certainly aren't trying to sell copies. St★lwart111 12:24, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 20:47, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete author, weak keep book - Weird stuff here. I agree the author is not independently notable per
    WP:BLP1E, and I couldn't find any good sourcing for her either, just weird stuff like this Wall Street Journal Opinion piece. (Her page has no valuable content, and so can be redirected to whatever target we end up with on the book.) Agree with User:Stalwart111 that the book itself is closer. It does seem the relevant content here should be Merged to Oklahoma City bombing conspiracy theories. Another potential source for context on Davis' reporting and the book here.[1] Suriname0 (talk) 20:07, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. North America1000 13:10, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dzianis Melyantsou

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

Most of the references are articles written by him, or mentions. There are no secondary reliable references about this fellow. Article fails

WP:JOURNALIST Whiteguru (talk) 07:11, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Whiteguru (talk) 07:11, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Whiteguru (talk) 07:11, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belarus-related deletion discussions. Whiteguru (talk) 07:11, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep links to bio were added now --Czalex 20:59, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Melyantsou has had a finger in all the large Belarus-related thinktanks and is known for his research in political sciences. He should also be treated as an Academic, not just a journalist. --Nieszczarda2 (talk) 10:03, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. 1) Other references to sources not written by Melyantsou have been recently added; 2) Even if the referred articles are written by Melyantsou, they are still published by reliable media such as
    Moscow Times, European Radio for Belarus and others, with approval of their editors / chief editors and adherence to the respective principles on media and journalism. SuuriMara 15:24, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The supposedly independent sources covering this individual have not been evaluated for reliability and substantiveness
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 20:45, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:56, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kwadwo Sheldon

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

Non-notable Youtuber. Award-winning in this case implying the subject passing Youtube's 100,000 subscribers mark. nearlyevil665 10:40, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@nearlyevil665, Kwadwo Sheldon is a very notable Ghanaian entity in the media space. He's won awards in Ghana and outside Ghana. What I created was just a stub and not basing my fact on his 100,000 Youtube subscribers. See more here --Jibodi (talk) 14:24, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil665 10:40, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:49, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:49, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:44, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ambrosiawater (talk) 07:00, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. VocalIndia (talk) 11:07, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete only 5 citations that are hardly significant. Peter303x (talk) 21:52, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Sources in the article seem reliable. He has received some coverage, albeit mostly from local media. Article needs to be expanded. Other than that, it's good enough to pass
    WP:GNG. ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 10:30, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 20:44, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Relisted long enough for notability to build. RL0919 (talk) 20:45, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Balika Vadhu (season 2)

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

Previously moved to draft and the draft is moved again into main space without resolving the issue. Not enough references to prove existence. Most probably a case of

WP:TOOSOON. Or it will not be wrong if it is redirected to Balika Vadhu DMySon (talk) 05:45, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 05:45, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 05:45, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Reverted page move carried out by sockpuppet. The original author is an editor in good standing.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:48, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:10, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 20:40, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The series has premiered now and also aired for 5 episodes pan-India. There are also sufficient refs and links to prove its existence. Passes GNG.
    Sunshine1191 (talk) 10:00, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Geschichte (talk) 18:58, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2021 Winston-Salem Open

2021 Winston-Salem Open (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

2021 Winston-Salem Open

Non-notable future tennis tournament. Already moved to draft space as not ready for article space once, but moved back to article space without improvement. Another unilateral move to draft space would be

significant coverage
because nothing to cover significantly yet. The references are two local online news web pages, and both appear to be in the nature of announcements (like press releases).

Reference Number Reference Comments Independent Significant
1 YesWeekly, local web news Reads like a press release ? No
2 Winston-Salem Journal Reads like a press release ? No
Robert McClenon (talk) 20:13, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:13, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:13, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:13, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennis-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:26, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on

"soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Previous deletion mentioned in the nomination appears to be deletion of a redirect after a page move, so not relevant to the status of the article. RL0919 (talk) 19:24, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

RONGETZ

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

No notable international coverage, no verifiable sources for their work. Subject has never earned any major awards or professional distinctions. Seems to be a vanity article for the subject, who may possibly be among the main contributors of the article (or is employing others connected to them to edit). A little confused because according to this, the article had been up for AfD in 2016; the result was delete. Yet here it is five years later. CurryTime7-24 (talk) 19:14, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:16, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:16, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 19:28, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shahram Sharifzadeh

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

WP:GNG pass. I did find one mention of him on BBC Persia but it was a passing mention about being invited to a training camp. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:11, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:12, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:12, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:12, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:21, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 19:50, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no sign of significance.--Mvqr (talk) 12:14, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 17:09, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oronamin C

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

WP:GNG, normal deletion process was denied, seemingly from a mix-up between Daijisen and Daijisen Plus, which is among others for Brand and Company names. Although even if it was in a dictionary it wouldn't fulfill GNG 8ya (talk • contribs) 18:33, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Thibaut (talk) 18:44, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Thibaut (talk) 18:44, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh sorry, I thought that placing the deletion notice on top of the article was the 'normal' way to do it.
I cannot access the 1st link as it is geoblocked, but for the other two: Maybe I am getting things wrong, please correct me if I am wrong on any of this, since this is my first time requesting a product deletion, but isn't the 2nd just trivial coverage from a product line launch notice (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#Examples_of_trivial_coverage explicitly mentions those as trivial coverage for companies – I don't see much difference for products) and the 3rd a trivial mention? 8ya (talk • contribs) 17:28, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are several academic pieces covering this drink:
  • Kim, Young-Ran (2017). "An Analysis of Dance Viral from the Ads,". Journal of the Korea Convergence Society. 8 (6): 283–289.
    ISSN 2233-4890
    .
  • Firdaus, Qonita; Suhaeni, Tintin (2020). "Pengaruh Ekuitas Merek Terhadap Minat Beli (Studi Pada Konsumen Oronamin C di Kota Bandung)". Jurnal Riset Bisnis dan Investasi. 6 (2): 64–71.
    ISSN 2684-706X
    .
  • Kang, A.-Reum; Park, Su-Hee; Woo, Jung-Woong; Hong, Da-Jung; Kim, Kyu-Ri; Sung, Chi-Yeong; Woo, Ji-Yeon; Jeong, Ju-Hui; Jung, Eun-Ha (2020). "Are Vitamin Beverages Good for Dental Health?". Journal of dental hygiene science. 20 (1): 9–15.
    ISSN 1598-4478
    .
And here are some other sources that cover this:
Jumpytoo Talk 20:52, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please correct me if I am wrong on any of this, since this is my first time requesting a product deletion:
The first one is about the ad campaign of it, does this count as coverage, since it doesn't "addresses the topic directly"? For example at companies that stuff is explictly excluded from counting.
The 3rd one is an inclusion in a research about 'Vitamin Beverages', which once again I am not sure if it counts
Not so sure of the focus of the 4th one without full text, doesn't seem to be about the product?
However the others do indeed seem like proper coverage, my bad sorry! 8ya (talk • contribs) 17:28, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • While primary coverage about ads would typically not meet
    WP:CORPDEPTH, the first link is secondary academic coverage and analysis of several of the products advertisements over a 2 year timeframe, which I argue would contribute to the overall product's notability, as it shows the product is important enough to have it's advertisements analyzed after the fact. I agree that the 3rd link isn't as strong as the other one's I provided, but it does have some analysis of the product. The fourth source is a magazine where one of the articles is titled オロナミンＣ二本を五〇〇〇円で買った夜──薬物依存症という病にはお金がかかる, which machine translated corresponds to The night I bought two bottles of Oronamin C for 500 yen - the disease of drug addiction is expensive.. I don't have a copy of the magazine but the title suggests the article talks significantly about the product, specifically how addictive it is. Jumpytoo Talk 05:21, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting in the hope that there can be more assessment and appraisal of the provided sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 11:18, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:02, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 18:27, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aldi Rinaldi

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

Semi-professional/amateur footballer with no concrete evidence to support notability. Football Critic, SofaScore, WF, Soccerpunter, GSA and Soccerway all have no professional appearances listed. There is one cup appearance on Soccerway but it's not between two teams playing in a league listed at

WP:NFOOTBALL
does not appear to be met.

In terms of coverage, there are an awful lot of false positives on Google News, due to the fact that there is a journalist with the exact same name. An Indonesian search returned nothing useful. The best source about this particular Aldi Rinaldi appears to be this passing mention in a local paper. Looks like a

WP:GNG failure. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:57, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:57, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:57, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:57, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:59, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Nehme1499 18:07, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 18:50, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, semi-pros don't pass NFOOTY.--Mvqr (talk) 12:14, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 18:44, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2017 BreakTudo Awards

2017 BreakTudo Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The parent article was recently deleted at

WP:LISTN
.

Courtesy ping to RunningTiger123, who found this group of articles and listed them in that AFD. I trust that they will form their own independent opinion on this nomination. Narky Blert (talk) 17:55, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons:

BreakTudo Awards 2018 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
BreakTudo Awards 2019 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
BreakTudo Awards 2020 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
BreakTudo Award for International Female Artist (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Narky Blert (talk) 18:05, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page for the same reason (my thanks to RunningTiger123 for the reminder):

BreakTudo Award for International Duo/Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Narky Blert (talk) 07:31, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 18:08, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 18:08, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:19, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Awards-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:19, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Should BreakTudo Award for International Duo/Group also be included in this nomination? I mentioned this article as well at the previous AFD. RunningTiger123 (talk) 23:40, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes -  Done. I'd overlooked that one. Narky Blert (talk) 07:31, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Main article was deleted in recent AFD. I voted to keep the main article's AFD, but I believe that if the result of the thread was "Delete", these should also be deleted together, as the articles are affluent pages. Ricardo Fett (talk) 17:53, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable award subpages, as I argued in the previous discussion.
    talk 06:17, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete and redirect to Sexism. RL0919 (talk) 18:49, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Exploitation of women in society

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

An essay-like article of the same topic as

content fork. WIKINIGHTS talk 05:27, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:05, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge anything useful to Sexism. Consider redirecting to Sexism. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:07, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm not an expert, so I'm not going to state a preference here, but as a non-expert it seems to me that there's a difference between sexism, which strikes me as something to do with attitudes, and exploitation, which seems to have a more specific connotation of active use (in this case, of women) rather than possibly unacted-upon prejudice. However, this is not an area I'm qualified to give a more robust view on. I'll be watching this debate with interest, though. RomanSpa (talk) 10:10, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with redirect to Sexism. I was initially inclined to agree with RomanSpa that this option was unsatisfactory, but on review, sexism does cover exactly the material in this article, just in a more encyclopedic and better referenced fashion. Furius (talk) 15:13, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 17:48, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is clearly a notable topic -- see The everyday exploitation of women, for example. We have a variety of similar article titles pointing in various directions, as follows, and so merger is not clear cut. Our policies
    WP:NOTCLEANUP. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:43, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  1. Exploitation of women redirects to Sexual slavery
  2. Exploitation of women in mass media is a separate page
  3. Third World Movement Against the Exploitation of Women is a separate page
  4. Female slavery in the United States is a separate page
  5. Female slavery redirects to Sexual slavery
The link you cite uses "women's subordination" and "patriarchy" as synonyms of exploitation in the abstract. I'm not going to take the effort to look inside the actual text, but I'd want a source to more directly claim that the exploitation of women is its own concept. Any difference in terms is pedantic and next to useless for the layman leader. Subtopics should not have their own articles, even if they pass GNG, if they are not especially notable in themselves. Wikipedia does not summarize all scholarship.
Merging is still possible. Just because there is no one target to merge into, does not mean we have to keep an article. We should merge relevant research into multiple articles. Of the research in the discussed article, most content is unsourced and thus unfit for merging. Even the sourced content would be all excessive detail and border on
undue POV pushing. This essay-like article was written to push a POV in the first place. (The author probably just wasn't aware of policy.) WIKINIGHTS talk 20:45, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. North America1000 13:00, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Union councils of Jessore District

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

Wikipedia is not a directory. We can easily listed the Unions/Wards by using category. Rocky Masum (talk) 10:53, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Rocky Masum (talk) 10:53, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:14, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:14, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per nomination. ~Yahya (✉) • 11:34, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Category is not enough. — Masum Ibn Musa  Conversation 14:01, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Not enough" to do what? What
    WP:GEOLAND keeps them from being deleted, but perhaps they should all be merged to lists like this. Then the list would serve a purpose, that of a gazetteer. --Worldbruce (talk) 19:11, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete per nomination as well Sahaib (talk) 20:03, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: A note if this is closed as delete: the other union councils of Bangladesh, which can be found in in this category, should also be deleted. Curbon7 (talk) 21:14, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- Yes, Wikipedia is not a directory per
    WP:DIRECTORY but does this policy cover this article? There are seven items listed on Wikipedia is not a directory. They are Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics, Genealogical entries, Directories, directory entries, electronic program guides, or resources for conducting business, Sales catalogues, Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations, and Simple listings. None of these applies to this particular article. This article needs to be improved but I do not see a good rationale for deletion. Take List of counties in Utah, which can be represented by a category, is a well-written article about a similar topic. Since most of the union councils in Bangladesh do not have articles but do qualify for articles; lists such as this one are a great resource and very useful for someone seeking information and trying to create articles on unions of Bangladesh.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 08:47, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
 Comment: In List of counties in Utah, we get a brief view. But in the mentioned article we only find some names only. It would be fine, if there is more information along with the names.--Rocky Masum (talk) 10:17, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That is neither here nor there; the question is whether the article is notable. Deletion is not for improvements.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 14:24, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - clearly legit article subject. Listing can be improved, with maps etc. --Soman (talk) 13:04, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per nom —MdsShakil (talk) 18:27, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nomination. MrsSnoozyTurtle 11:39, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 17:42, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I can’t see any policy-based rationale for deletion. Mccapra (talk) 07:23, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 18:17, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Evanthis Ioannou

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

Poorly sourced BLP with clear notability concerns. In marginal cases such as this one, the weak

WP:GNG. Five years ago, he came on for the last few minutes of one football match and has not played another minute of professional football since. Searches, including those centred on Greek language sources, failed to yield any significant in-depth coverage. The best that I could locate were Kerkida (translated) and Sigma Live, neither of which would allow us to expand this biography beyond the very basic stub that it currently is. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:27, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:28, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:28, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:28, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:30, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Nehme1499 18:07, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - there is longstanding consensus that scraping by on NFOOTBALL with one or two appearances is insufficient when GNG is failed so comprehensively, as is the case here. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 18:50, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, scraping by NFOOTY with a few minutes played but failing GNG, not notable.--Mvqr (talk) 12:15, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. RL0919 (talk) 18:19, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm Down (book)

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

Fails to meet the notability requirement, indicated by the lack of anything besides primary sourcing. Tkbrett (✉) 16:50, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 16:55, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 16:55, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. RL0919 (talk) 18:30, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Radha Stirling

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

All of the sources listed here are about her company, not her as an individual or any of her other work. This seems to be a case of a

WP:REDUNDANTFORK, as the content of this article overlaps considerably with the article about her company, Detained in Dubai. I propose redirecting this page to her company's article. Niftysquirrel (talk) 16:19, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 16:42, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 16:42, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 16:44, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 16:44, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's
list of content for rescue consideration. INeedToFlyForever (talk) 12:58, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 18:23, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Steele

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

I can find no

WP:GNG sources for this person. The refs cited in the article are not independent or brief mentions. The HuffPo interview is from a contributor so not RS [25]. Hindustan Times is identified as a press release [26] as is the Deccan Herald [27]. The Hans India is not so identified, but is clearly the same thing [28]. Levivich 15:01, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Levivich 15:01, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Levivich 15:01, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Levivich 15:01, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Levivich 15:01, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As stated in nom, almost all the references in the article are either self published or otherwise unsuitable for establishing notability and verifiability. Much of the article reads as promotional to me, such as the numerous self quotes inserted for no good reason, the long list of philanthropy, and the bragging about the subject's business. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:07, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. -Hatchens (talk) 04:19, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The subject appears to be a successful business person, but success in business alone does not make for a Wiki article. Notability has clearly not been shown and reliable sources are lacking. Fails
    WP:GNG. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 07:53, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete due to lack of significant coverage in secondary sources that are considered reliable for the subject area. RL0919 (talk) 21:48, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fantasy bond

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

As an IP rightfully said on the talk page "This article cites books based on doctrine, whose authors do not base their conclusions on any meaningful research. It's a really bad example of Wikipedia descending into esoteric pseudoscience." Indeed, the reference are at best primary sources (the works of Robert Firestone, the originator of the concept himself), at worst graphic novels (such as Couch Fiction) or self-help books (Healing The Shame That Binds You). I cannot find any

WP:FRINGE-compliant article. JBchrch talk 14:58, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. JBchrch talk 14:58, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. JBchrch talk 14:58, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. JBchrch talk 14:58, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. JBchrch talk 14:58, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The links I posted are a Cognitive-Behavioral Institute and a PBS publication.
talk) 17:25, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
The first link is an article on the website Rewire, a national publication for adults in their 20s and 30s who want to improve their lives and build a better and brighter future for all [29] : there is a wide and long-standing consensus that such pop magazines are not considered reliable for psychological and medical claims. The second link is a post by "marion" (no last name) on the blog section of the website of "Dr." Kathie Matthis'
WP:MEDRS. JBchrch talk 18:06, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
This isn't about claims being made about the concept, it's about whether or not the concept has received enough attention and interest to be included in Wikipedia. An article about ghosts does not imply ghosts exist, only that they are a topic worthy of existing on Wikipedia for the general public's inevitable interest.
talk) 19:08, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
This is not what GNG says though: notability requires coverage in reliable sources per the reliable source guideline, which includes
WP:RS/MC. There is a logic here: if you can't write anything in an article because you lack the relevant reliable sources to make any claims about the topic, then there's no reason for a Wikipedia article about it to exist in the first place. JBchrch talk 19:23, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
  1. Dicke, J. A. (2002). The use of touch and the synthetic, anatomically correct penis in the diagnosis and treatment of sexual abuse. Traumatology: An International Journal, 8(2), 87–102.
    doi:10.1177/153476560200800204
  2. Fabrikant, C. (1989). Review of The fantasy bond: Effects of psychological defenses on interpersonal relations. Psychotherapy, 26(2), 256.
    doi:10.1037/h0085431
  3. Firestone, R. W. (1984). A concept of the primary fantasy bond: A developmental perspective. Psychotherapy, 21(2), 218–225.
    doi:10.1037/h0085976
  4. Firestone, R. W. (1994). A new perspective on the oedipal complex: A voice therapy session. Psychotherapy, 31(2), 342–351.
    doi:10.1037/h0090217
  5. Firestone, R. W. (1987). Destructive effects of the fantasy bond in couple and family relationships. Psychotherapy, 24(2), 233–239.
    doi:10.1037/h0085709
  6. Firestone, R. W. (1989). Parenting groups based on voice therapy. Psychotherapy, 26(4), 524–529.
    doi:10.1037/h0085473
  7. Firestone, R. W. (1990). Prescription for psychotherapy. Psychotherapy, 27(4), 627–635.
    doi:10.1037/0033–3204.27.4.627
  8. Firestone, R. W. (1986). The "inner voice" and suicide. Psychotherapy, 23(3), 439–447.
    doi:10.1037/h0085636
  9. Firestone, R. W. (2002). The death of psychoanalysis and depth therapy. Psychotherapy, 39(3), 223–232.
    doi:10.1037/0033–3204.39.3.223
  10. Firestone, R. W., & Seiden, R. H. (1987). Microsuicide and suicidal threats of everyday life. Psychotherapy, 24(1), 31–39.
    doi:10.1037/h0085688
  11. Magnavita, J. J. (1997). Review of Combating destructive thought processes: Voice therapy and separation theory. Psychotherapy, 34(3), 337–338.
    doi:10.1037/h0092381
  12. Morrant, C. (1999). Review of Fear of intimacy. Psychotherapy, 36(4), 416–417.
    doi:10.1037/h0092418
  13. Sluzki, C. E. (2004). Review of Creating a life of meaning and compassion: The wisdom of psychotherapy. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 74(1), 90.
    doi:10.1037/0002–9432.74.1.90a
  14. Winick, B. J. (1998). Client denial and resistance in the advance directive context: Reflections on how attorneys can identify and deal with a psycholegal soft spot. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 4(3), 901–923.
    doi:10.1037/1076–8971.4.3.901
Biogeographist (talk) 17:57, 10 August 2021 (UTC) and 18:17, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
...and even in the Winick article, all we have about the fantasy bond is one sentence citing Firestone: Self-denial about death produces a variety of psychological disturbances (Firestone, 1985, pp. 275-276) (p. 906), the reference being The fantasy bond: Structure of psychological defenses. JBchrch talk 18:14, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. I amended my comment since somehow I omitted an item as well.
Biogeographist (talk) 18:17, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:32, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 20:41, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jackque Gonzaga

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

Fails

WP:ENTERTAINER. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 14:32, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 14:32, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 14:32, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 14:32, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 14:32, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully, those are not valid keep arguments. Per
WP:BIO. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:10, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
All the references in the article is Reliable. Sources are came from news organizations here in
talk · contribs
)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:05, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Maybe one day in the future she will be notable enough for Wikipedia, but that day has not arrived. Pretty obviously fails WP:ENTERTAINER per nom. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:12, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
She has a Wikipedia article translated in Filipino that is published until now. Check it out. So what is the problem to create an English version wikipedia article for her?.
talk · contribs
).
The existence of one article is not a justification for the existence of another. The Filipino Wikipedia article for her has even fewer sources and is a stub that's likely escaped being deleted because nobody has nominated it for deletion yet. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:51, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:43, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semboga Roy

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

Article about a student president that fails

WP:ANYBIO. Riteboke (talk) 13:34, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Riteboke (talk) 13:34, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Riteboke (talk) 13:34, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Riteboke (talk) 13:34, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uganda-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:38, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 20:42, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Trinity Records Hong Kong

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

Seems to fail notability criteria for labels. Aside from the connection between metal and Hong Kong being somewhat novel, Trinity Records was somewhat short-lived and had a small output of 34 releases.

WP:BEFORE yielded nothing about the label, and the dead CNN link was perhaps more about the bands than the label? Geschichte (talk) 08:12, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:28, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:28, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:29, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: At least one version of the CNN article can be found in the Internet Archive. The subheadline reads „A look at how Hong Kong label Trinity Records is helping Asian metal come of age“. I think it's more about the label than the bands... By the way: I am the author and, no surprise at all, I'd like to keep the article. --Herr P. schreibt (talk) 19:54, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:48, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 19:53, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ITU T.61

ITU T.61 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nominating for transwikiing and deletion, following the precedent at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Code page 875. -- Beland (talk) 05:24, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Beland (talk) 05:24, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Last year 120+ EBCDIC code page articles were also slated for "transwiki and delete" but to my knowledge they were never transwiki'd but simply deleted. I have little faith that ITU T.61 will actually be transwiki'd even if that's the decision. DRMcCreedy (talk) 15:48, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, looks like they didn't make it to Wikibooks, but they did make it to Everybodywiki, which is apparently the land of deleted articles. For example [30]. -- Beland (talk) 22:47, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If the nominator or a volunteer cares to successfully transwiki the pages to WikiBooks and stand them up successfully and shown then this is done deletion may be raised. Otherwise the nominator appears to be simply promoting an alternative website. If seeking for help with transwiki ... note Wikipedia:WikiProject Transwiki is defunct. Djm-leighpark (talk) 17:30, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't endorse Everybodywiki; it's just what came up on a web search. I have no intention of working on transwikiing; I just noticed that some but not all code page articles had been approved for deletion and wanted to see if that should be done consistently across the board. Saying we can't delete this until they are actually transwikied to Wikibooks is an argument for undeleting all the other code page articles, no? -- Beland (talk) 02:34, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Beland: "Transwiki" is a term that is easily said but perhaps less well defined. A page can be relatively easily "transwiki'd" to WikiBooks (the EBCIDIC stuff was in my view done poorly and mostly have a copyvio attributable to an English wikipedia oversighter unless somethings changed), however to be of any use there it needs to be stood up and integrated into a WikiBook. To a degree is a bit like the kit of parts from Woolwich Arsenal bought by Morton at the Broadstone ... useless until built into a GSR Class 393, and which then has some long term issues because the design's been kludged from 4' 8½" to 5' 3". Djm-leighpark (talk) 02:56, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK, if we're not undeleting the EBCDIC code pages, and no one gets around to making Wikibooks out of any of these articles, then we're just doing a deletion and assuming that in the unlikely event anyone needs to translate a file in these character encodings, they will simply refer to the primary documents from the vendor that define the standard. Which is what we more or less assume for any real thing that isn't notable. I'm fine with that. -- Beland (talk) 17:20, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:24, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:41, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:39, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of cryptocurrencies on Coinbase

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

Listings of products on offer by an organisation that trades in them. Fails

WP:PROMO Ajf773 (talk) 10:17, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 10:17, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 10:17, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to

WP:ATD. Daniel (talk) 20:43, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

List of Sunset Beach cast members

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

Unsourced list that does not warrant a standalone article due to being small in size. Does not meet

DarkGlow • 08:46, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
DarkGlow • 08:46, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
DarkGlow • 08:46, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
DarkGlow • 08:46, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
DarkGlow • 08:46, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
DarkGlow • 08:46, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment reply I regularly nominate articles for deletion and participate in deletion discussions so I am hardly targeting you. I was going through cast member
DarkGlow • 15:35, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:54, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into the article about the show. Not worth losing the cast list just because the standalone list doesn't pass notability guidelines. DonaldD23 talk to me 23:47, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —
Talk∕Contribs 09:43, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America1000 12:28, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anglers Park, Florida

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

A non-notable unincorporated neighborhood of

reliable sources exist. Google maps. Curbon7 (talk) 09:22, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 09:22, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 09:22, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If reception is well, then I'll likely bundle nom these by county going forward (separating the marginal ones for singular discussion, of course). Curbon7 (talk) 09:29, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Neighborhood/subdivision without notability. It is and has since at least 2000 been within the Key Largo CDP so I don't know why the article incorrectly says it's to the northeast of it, not that it makes a difference. Reywas92Talk 16:22, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete I'm generally in favor of keeping articles on unincorporated places, but only if there is sufficient information available on them to establish some level of notability. Searching for this neighborhood only brings up hotel and real estate websites. If sources can be added to demonstrate notability, I would change my vote. As it stands, there's not enough to support the article's existence. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:25, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • A lot of this is about the person the subdivision was constructed for. Other than a short statement that a rail switch was added to make shipping construction supplies easier, and passing mentions such as this, I'm mostly finding real estate listings and old newspaper advertisements selling lots/investment shares in the subdivision. I don't think the coverage is enough for notability, despite the subdivision going back to the 1920s. So delete. As a caution to the nominator, from what I've seen, only bundled ones of highly similar uncontroversial articles go over well, and even then I wouldn't recommend over 8 or 10 at a time to avoid
    WP:TRAINWRECK concerns. Hog Farm Talk 23:39, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Hog Farm, duly noted, will likely just do them one by one in that case. Curbon7 (talk) 02:29, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Speedy delete Couldn't all of these be CSD? I think the key point is that not even GNIS is used for the lone source. It's some self-published source. – The Grid (talk) 02:11, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wish to assume good faith on the editor who created the article but digging through their article creation history leads me to similar questionable articles. If you want to group items, Curbon7 - you probably could start here. – The Grid (talk) 13:02, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • The Grid, after some great advice from Hog Farm, the way I decided to go about it is to just PROD the simply non-controversial articles like this one, and bring to AfD the one's that are more uncertain. This one was mainly a test run to see how much appetite there was. Curbon7 (talk) 13:29, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As this clipping explains, Anglers Park is nothing more than a subdivision within Key Largo, Florida. No evidence that this meets GEOLAND or GNG.
There is no source that describes this as an "unincorporated community". –dlthewave ☎ 02:27, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete per

non-admin closure. St★lwart111 02:13, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Vajrapran

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

Highly promotional with suspect sources and medical claims. I deleted this previously as a text dump, but some effort has been made to improve it, so bringing it here. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:01, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 09:41, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 09:41, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment It's not promotional at all: things provided here are being practised by a lot people. I would request to reconsider the decision because due to the issue that there are very few source available associated with Vajrapran does not mean that it's a made up things. Taskwriteups (talk) 10:55, 10 August 2021 (UTC) User talk:Jimfbleak Taskwriteups (talk) 10:56, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Source 1, 2, 4 are circular. Source 3 is used to cite who invented it, (but not what it is or why it's important). Source 5 (6 is the same) roughly translates to an advertisement, not reliable. Source 7 cites an advertisement: one can easily take care of their mind. Source 8 (11 is the same) is short and says almost nothing about the article subject, just mentioning it once. Source 9 has no mention of the subject. Source 10 has the same idea as 8. There is nothing to indicate importance, and the citations are not
    WP:RS or relevant. If the uncited content is removed, it either reads like an advertisement, or you are left with a blank page, depending on how much you remove. WhoAteMyButter (📨talk│📝contribs) 16:43, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]

[User:WhoAteMyButter] I remove those sources and provided some newspaper sources instead. I have also provided a source of a book which is also available on Google bOOKS. Taskwriteups (talk) 03:39, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article still reads like an advertisement, and isn't neutral at all.
  • liveliness like lightning that ensures
  • undestroyable and resistless
  • through Vajrapran’s scientific approaches, one can easily take care of their mind
There's also no indication of why this article is important. It's full of vague and POV statements, attributing results to no specific person or case, and making claims that are uncited. WhoAteMyButter (📨talk│📝contribs) 03:51, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article Deletion: Hello Jimfbleak. I would request you to have look at the page and reconsider the decision.ThanksTaskwriteups (talk) 04:23, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hello WhoAteMyButter. Rewrote the article. Of you could have a look. I tried to leave out all those lines as I understood that some of the lines seem inappropriate. Thanks for your insight. Taskwriteups (talk) 04:47, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ✗plicit 13:58, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Simply K-Pop

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

How would it notable, worthy of notice if there's no reliable, independent source at all? I think it should be merged with Music programs of South Korea. 1Way4Together - J. Smile | Awards and similar items are not for sales 08:04, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Search Google or some engine web test, there's no source mentioned Simply K-pop now a days (artist perform in Simply K-pop usually don't get mentioned in article). Long-running doesn't guarantee notability. 1Way4Together - J. Smile | Awards and similar items are not for sales 10:32, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominated Pops in Seoul for the same reason. 1Way4Together - J. Smile | Awards and similar items are not for sales 08:07, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:26, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:26, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:26, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, long-running tv shows, and the nominator doesn't provide a convincing argument. Geschichte (talk) 10:10, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • But how can you be sure, have you searched comprehensively for sources in the Korean language? I know I can't. (By the way, your signature is long and confusing.) Geschichte (talk) 19:03, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 08:07, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - there's plenty of coverage and its not hard to find. Hell, the COVID-19 tests taken by the hosts received coverage. The channel itself has received coverage in industry publications and articles like this. There's more than enough for me. And the lack of effort in nominating this article suggests the other co-nomination (which probably shouldn't have been included here anyway) should be kept by default. St★lwart111 05:36, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A quick search on Google for 심플리 케이팝 shows many coverages. Htanaungg (talk) 04:41, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There's tons of coverage on Naver for Simply Kpop going as far back as 2012 (and that's just using only the show title as a search term), and for Pops In Soeul from as far back as 2006, which is the primary place that references for most SK music program articles are/can be sourced from. Did you even bother to do more than a cursory Google search before nominating either page? Eng-lang sources will never be in the majority when it comes to these particular types of articles. I'd suggest familiarizing yourself with the
    WP:KO/RS list as another editor recommended to you on this related talk page, because it appears you want to help make improvements on pages but don't really seem to know or understand how to properly write+reliably source changes. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 12:51, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on

"soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:40, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Tony Miller (athlete)

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

I can find no evidence that this runner meets

WP:YOUNGATH. I did not find any in depth coverage of this runner; however, perhaps someone with more experience with athletes can find something. He apparently set two high school records almost 35 years ago (although the cited ref appears less than stellar) and then ran at university (an unsourced claim). He apparently won a relay gold at the 1993 Summer Universiade although this is not mentioned in the article. He also apparently participated in the 1995 Pan American Games without medaling, although this is not mentioned in the article. As I understand the notability requirements, this is not sufficient. Note that there are other athletes (and even runners) with the same name, so search hits are not necessarily him. Meters (talk) 01:34, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:31, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:31, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 07:52, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Mz7 (talk) 07:21, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ETV tütarlastekoor

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

There are hints at notability, but I don't think it passes the threshold. They have worked with notable people, but notability is not inherited. I couldn't find the sources to confirm most of this, through Google or the Estonian article. Boleyn (talk) 07:44, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:26, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:26, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@
WP:SIGCOV only per EMIC and per theirs website. I suggest that redirect to Eesti Televisioon or List of Estonian choirs--Estopedist1 (talk) 11:58, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:51, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:36, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this is a serious, professionally-run choir that has indeed travelled to many countries and taken part in major competitions. It has been well received by reviewers including Brian Eno. I've added reception and citations. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:46, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 04:17, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Horner

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

Third-party also-ran clearly fails

SPEAK 23:04, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 23:16, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 23:16, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Tom Horner got over 10% of the vote in state level race. The article could use some updates since 2010. I see his name in the Minnesota news on a regular basis, and as as political writer [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], etc. Tom Ruen (talk) 08:02, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - He continues to appear in the news. Comfr (talk) 19:22, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
^
SPEAK 19:32, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:28, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 08:55, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 08:55, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete Materialscientist (talk) 07:02, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adan Santiago (child-actor)

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

Article about a child actor that fails to satisfies

WP:TOOSOON to have a page on this subject. Riteboke (talk) 06:31, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Riteboke (talk) 06:31, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Riteboke (talk) 06:31, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Riteboke (talk) 06:31, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. North America1000 12:12, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Angela Ken

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

Fails

WP:GNG. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 06:19, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 06:19, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 06:19, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 06:19, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Astig - the cited sources seem to establish GNG. Furius (talk) 12:59, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure why that's relevant? Furius (talk) 22:14, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not follows the guidelines, not much notable also.Aloolkaparatha (talk) 07:51, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article has only one reference, need more improvement.
    talk · contribs
    )
@
WP:NOTCLEANUP. SBKSPP (talk) 03:35, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. RL0919 (talk) 06:05, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Waman Meshram

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

Non-notable political figure. The only source cited in the article is all that I could find by search, of any substance; the rest is just the usual social media mentions and a couple of pieces written by the subject. Fails

WP:NPOL notability either. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:37, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:37, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:37, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:37, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per the nomination. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 17:10, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Has national profile in Dalit and OBC politics. Google news search turns up multiple mentions over many years.[2][3][4][5][6][7] Mentioned in Dalit studies texts.[8][9][10] Op-ed in Indian Express.[11]

References

  1. ^ https://apjjf.org/2012/10/39/Peter-Dale-Scott/3835/article.html
  2. ^ "Activists work to unite Dalits and Muslims". The Sunday Guardian Live. 27 August 2016.
  3. ^ "Remove names of 1965, 1971 war martyrs from Jaystambh: Bharat Mukti Morcha". The Indian Express. 30 December 2018.
  4. ^ Fatima, Nikhat (24 October 2018). "Popular Front condemns arrest of Waman Meshram". TwoCircles.net.
  5. ^ "Mumbai: Rail roko at Kanjurmarg station briefly disrupts Central line services". The Indian Express. 29 January 2020.
  6. ^ "Campaign against electronic voting machines from March 25". The Times of India. 20 March 2017.
  7. ^ "BJP, Congress equally responsible for CAA mess: Meshram". The Hindu. 4 February 2020.
  8. ISBN 978-81-321-1886-2
    .
  9. ISBN 978-0-230-62636-2
    .
  10. ISBN 978-955-580-092-1
    .
  11. ^ "Dalitality: Thank you PM Modi for uniting us against CAA". The Indian Express. 29 December 2019.
Passes
WP:BASIC: "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability." Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 00:46, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. No prejudice against creating a redirect if a suitable target is identified. RL0919 (talk) 18:36, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Praxis effect

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

This article belongs in a Star Trek dictionary. All mentions of this term are in passing. Furthermore, judging from what I was able to find, this is not even the main definition of the term. ―Susmuffin Talk 05:19, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ―Susmuffin Talk 05:19, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. ―Susmuffin Talk 05:19, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ―Susmuffin Talk 05:19, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus: Would this link for the French source work for you? I found it in this Google books search, where Google scholar left me none the wiser. Daranios (talk) 17:28, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All I get is a pop up saying "Keine Leseprobe verfügbar". Do you get a page view? I see this book, in few editions, on Google Books, but each instance is "No preview". If you can access the relevant page(s), could you try to summarize what is in them? A big concern I have is that while the special effect itself may be notable, we have an OR name and an OR connection (saying that Star Trek invented it). This needs better sources to be proven. Lastly, please note that the book in question is from 2017; we may be dealing with the
WP:CITOGENESIS here. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:38, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
As shown by the page by Paul Ens linked below, the suggestion that Star Trek invented the effect dates back to 1997 (the same year the Star Wars Special Editions were released), five years before Phil Plait's book and eleven years before the Wikipedia article. Gildir (talk) 09:53, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus: Yes, I see the page view, seems to be a country thing. Drat, the phrasing does not completely exclude citogenesis after all. The page features an image of the effect from Star Trek VI and says according to Google translator "...the massive shock wave of a planet destroyed at the start of Star Trek VI, a graphic process also immediately baptized (Praxis Effect). It will be found in many intergalactic blockbusters (Star Gate, Star Wars ep. IV and IV special edition 1997)". It also lists the explosions and deflagrations of the film as contributing to "Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country even became the perfect example of the early 1990s digital effects film". Oh yeah, and that the effect was done by ILM/Lucasfilm Computer Graphics Division. I think that's it.
So we have a reliable secondary source using the name. While this cannot rule out citogenesis, as the alternative that
the neologism guideline suggests, to "use a title that is a descriptive phrase", I think it's less awkward to go with "Praxis Effect" (even rather than "Praxis effect"?) based on this source. And let the future worry about proving or disproving citogenesis. Daranios (talk) 10:57, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Hmmm. Setting the citogenesis aside (since it, by itself, is secondary to other issues), how big is the description of this effect in that source? How many sentences? Does it meet SIGCOV? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:26, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus: Well, I think there's not more than what I've described: The picture of the effect, the two sentences I've provided in translation which include the name. Two sentences describing that ILM/Lucasfilm Computer Graphics Division got into Star Trek, including doing the special effects for Star Trek VI (which included the Praxis Effect). And one sentence of praise for these special effects, which I have translated, which is followed by a list of the types of special effects including "intergalactic explosions, blasts, ..." which should include the one we are discussing here. So, if you want to count, you can go from two to six sentences + the image, depending on how you want to count. Daranios (talk) 15:01, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Most Controversial Changes to the 'Star Wars' Saga (published in 2018, ten years after the Wikipedia article) states that the "explosion ring has become known as the Praxis effect for its use in Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country. Ray Hardgrit's Sci-Fi Adventures: Star Wars: Episode IV - A New Hope, a blog post from 2017, refers to "an unnecessary Praxis effect shock wave". 7 Excellent Changes George Lucas Made to the 'Star Wars' Saga (published in 2016) uses the term "Praxis effect" without even mentioning Star Trek VI (it refers to "something called the Praxis effect"). 12 Times Star Wars Failed At Basic Science, also from 2016, refers to "that infamous Praxis ring of energy expanding outwards", with the words "Praxis ring of energy" linked to the Wikipedia article. How Much Money Has Every Star Wars Film Made?, from 2016, mentions "a praxis [lower case!] ring, an effect made fun of in numerous satire videos and images."
Top 10 Worst Changes Made to Star Wars, from 2011, refers to "a Praxis halo" and does mention Star Trek VI by name. Weekend Roundtable: Worst 'Star Wars' Special Edition Changes, a blog post from 2011, refers to "the addition of a Praxis ring (lifted directly out of 'Star Trek VI')". The Praxis effect: Star Wars > Star Trek was published in 2010; the link to the full article at Shadowlocked is a dead link. Science Says Star Wars Blows Up Better Than Star Trek, from 2010, discusses Phil Plait's analysis of the subject and mentions Praxis, but uses the term "ring effect" (in quotes in the article) rather than "Praxis effect".
Paul Ens' Star Wars: A New Hope Special Edition Annotations, "Last updated Tuesday, Aug 26, 1997" (five years before Plait's book and eleven years before the Wikipedia article), states the following: "This is a similar effect to that used in Star Trek 6 when the Klingon moon Praxis explodes. (The word 'Praxis' is actually used in the ANH:SE credits.)" Paul Ens does not use the precise phrase "Praxis effect", however.
There are also many references of this kind on message boards and the like. The moral of the story seems to be that the word "Praxis" has become a well-known qualifier among geeks for this kind of ring, with an implied reference to Star Trek VI that doesn't require mentioning the movie by name. To what extent this phenomenon was generated or encouraged by the creation of the Wikipedia article in 2008 (with Plait's 2002 Bad Astronomy book as its sole source, as it still is), I cannot say. Gildir (talk) 22:39, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Message boards and blogs are generally not reliable. The "top 7" and "top 12" lists are not reliable, either. The Escapist article appears to be a reprint of the Shadowlocked one. Unfortunately, Shadowlocked is a blog. Looking at their current website, they seem to full of spam. Honestly, all of the sources, excluding a handful of blogs and forum posts, are in passing. A term being known among nerds does not replace the need for reliable sources. ―Susmuffin Talk 23:50, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Plus all the WP:CITOGENESIS problems. Now, some terms invented on Wikipedia did became notable, so it's not like we are raising the bar here, but so far I still not seeing any source that meets RS requirements (offers
WP:SIGCOV and is independent and reliable). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:40, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
That's a bit awkward, though, since, although most of the coverage relates to the ANH Special Edition, the actual name "Praxis" refers to ST VI. Gildir (talk) 09:49, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree there. Seeing that we are already a bit beyond stub length, and that we have a least a second reliable source, keeping the article separate seems preferable to the merge to a less-than-ideal target. Daranios (talk) 15:01, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 04:19, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Narantulga Buriad

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

Source 1 is a bare passing mention, and source 2 says just a single work has been in a group exhibition, so I fail to see how this passes GNG or

WP:NARTIST (or why this and source 2 disagree on their pronouns) Reywas92Talk 03:03, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Reywas92Talk 03:03, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mongolia-related deletion discussions. Reywas92Talk 03:03, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 03:17, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 03:20, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Skydive Örebro DHC-2 Turbo Beaver crash

Skydive Örebro DHC-2 Turbo Beaver crash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As stated by Ahunt

WP:EVENT. ZLEA T\C 02:53, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ZLEA T\C 02:53, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per
    WP:AIRCRASH. While the incident fatality is high, 8 out 9, as the incident only involves light aircraft it is non-prominent. No major change on procedures, thus no notability from that end. Tragic incident, but non-notable. SunDawntalk 08:19, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:01, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:01, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per
    airworthiness directives, no changes in ATC procedures, or anything else, plus no notable people involved. Wikipedia continues to have articles created on non-notable aircraft accidents while ignoring equivalent accidents involving buses, trains, automobiles, bicycles, etc, due solely the the mainstream press sensationalizing aircraft crashes while ignoring most other transportation accidents. We also treat these accidents very unevenly: there have been more than 313 Beaver crashes and we have articles on almost none of them (because they are non-notable). I am sure editors will try to argue that this accident is so unique because eight people died, but why should this accident be covered, while hundreds of other similar ones are ignored, including a very similar one again yet again this past week in which six people died? And please don't argue that we need an article on that accident, as it also fails the same criteria.- Ahunt (talk) 12:28, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: Notification of the existence of this AfD has been made at WikiProject Aviation and WikiProject Aircraft, within whose scope this article falls. - Ahunt (talk) 12:35, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:07, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: as per another incident that has been deleted recently, this one is similar. Sadly a few people died, but this is a minor accident of a small plane: it doesn't need a standalone page.--Paolo9999 (talk) 12:21, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Ahunt - Whilst it's sad there's been fatalities here however sadly no one involved was notable and as Ahunt states these sorts of crashes tend to happen every year. (I don't mean this to sound heartless but) Unless it's a terrible accident which results in court hearings or changes in law or even a unique accident in some way then I don't really see a need for an article here. –Davey2010Talk 14:27, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Ahunt. Tragic but not notable....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:15, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – I long for some consistency here on WP. We covered skydiver plane crashes more than once in the past:
They, and the nominated article, are all very similar for category of aircraft involved, type of flight, number of fatalities etc. They should either all go or all stay, so that the reader knows what to expect. --Deeday-UK (talk) 08:41, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:AIRCRASH. Therefore, three of the accidents you listed probably are not notable enough for their own articles. However, 2010 Fox Glacier FU-24 crash states that "The final report was released in May 2012. It recommended tightened regulation of centre-of-gravity calculations, change of use modifications and parachute pilot monitoring." I'm not sure if you can call that a "significant change to the aircraft design or aviation operations", but it's probably worth discussing. - ZLEA T\C 15:22, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS applies and they should all be nominated for deletion on the same basis. I should add that I would be in favour of keeping them all, as long as we treated all transportation accidents equally and have articles on all car, bus, train, boating, bike, etc, accidents. - Ahunt (talk) 16:23, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
@ZLEA: The bit you quote above was totally unreferenced (It can go back in if referenced with a reliable source) and I removed it as such. I also nominated the article for deletion. The AFD can be found here....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:11, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WilliamJE I actually quoted the part directly above the content you removed. The content I quoted is sourced directly from the final report. It may not be a secondary source, but the quoted text is by no means unreferenced. - ZLEA T\C 18:54, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 04:19, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dk Nadiah Pg Khashiem

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

Sources mention her briefly for her role in a first for this small airline, but lack any substantive coverage about Khashiem herself, so I don't see notability here. Reywas92Talk 02:52, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brunei-related deletion discussions. Reywas92Talk 02:52, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 03:14, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 03:14, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I thought about this, but the other two are said to be the airline (and thus the country's?) 'first female commercial pilot' and 'first female flight captain', which seems to make them more notable than Khashiem, if true. Furius (talk) 14:40, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdrawn. It's very disappointing to see so many people say "screw GNG, let's outsource to a brief add-on to her sister's actual entry that is in no way significant coverage". Very disappointing to see people make up nonsense out of thin air claiming MBE counts for automatic notability despite no consensus or guideline saying so for this not-uncommon lower-level honor, for which a small portion of recipients are WP-notable. Even more disappointing to see people call bias because this is a woman in (perhaps) a woman's profession, even when it is in fact rare for grammar school heads of any gender to be notable for that. Substantive sources may in fact exist, but I expect to see that before keep votes.

(non-admin closure) Reywas92Talk 01:53, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Maud Cameron

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

Can't tell why this grammar school headmistress would be notable, seems to be a generic principal and sources are passing or nondistinguishing mentions. Reywas92Talk 02:37, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Reywas92Talk 02:37, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 03:16, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 03:16, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 09:06, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Aoziwe (talk) 15:58, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thank you for the links - it looks like there is more support for
WP:GNG notability, e.g. SOCIAL NOTES (Leader, 1911, biographical, education, career information), FIRBANK PRINCIPAL LOOKS BACK "Today's girls just like grandma" (The Argus, 1951), She's been head for 40 years (The Argus, 1951), LOOKS BACK 40 YEARS (The Herald, 1951), picture with announcement of her retirement (The Argus, 1954), No chalk dust in her eye (The Argus, 1954, in-depth profile). Beccaynr (talk) 19:49, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 02:39, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2021 Lansing City Council election

2021 Lansing City Council election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails to meet criteria for notability. SecretName101 (talk) 02:07, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. SecretName101 (talk) 02:07, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. SecretName101 (talk) 02:07, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Except for the in-depth coverage in multiple reliable sources? Its arguable that primarily local coverage means this doesn't have the sort of
WP:GNG. St★lwart111 10:37, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 09:04, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
So you really do not believe this is impactful in a way to justify an article, but you argue to keep it because you are an insufferable rules lawyer who wants to make others offenders for a word because they did not use the right buzz words to properly invoke the issue. You admit that you really deep down know this is not notable, but you insist on keeping it because you want to teach others a lesson on invoking the right terms and buzz words. This is a downright horrible way to build an encyclopedia, and it is what has lead to Wikipedia being weighed down by Dedhamania and several other unjustified localist obsessions.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:39, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all. I suggested there was an argument to be made about impact, and I'm happy to have that discussion. But what was presented was references to policy that clearly don't apply in this instance. But your
personal attacks are a nice contribution. The onus is on the nominator to present a valid reason for deletion. None was presented. St★lwart111 23:51, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
No, the onus is on you to demonstrate that this is actually a notable thing. I am going to call out bad arguments when I see them, and yours were clearly that.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:50, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, we do not decide to keep or delete articles on the merits of the argument of the nominator. We decide to delete or keep articles because they do or do not meet inclusion criteria. This has no reference to the persuasize or literary capabilities of the nominator.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:03, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I can't tell if you're trying to be deliberately obtuse or disingenuous, but your personal-attacks-first hot-take suggests the latter. And its out of character given what I've seen from you in the past. You know full well that's not what was being suggested. But if you genuinely think that
WP:BEFORE is a hand-wave serving suggestion rather than policy, there's not much more to discuss. St★lwart111 02:33, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 04:18, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Recidivism Reduction and Public Safety Act of 2013

Recidivism Reduction and Public Safety Act of 2013 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No significant coverage per

WP:N. SL93 (talk) 00:32, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 00:40, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 00:40, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 00:40, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete At best, this topic deserves only a passing mention on senator Sheldon Whitehouse's article. The article is a mess and has no references besides procedural pages for congress. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:39, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Recidivism. This bill can be integrated into section 3 of the already-existing article: Policies addressing recidivism. Heartmusic678 (talk) 18:12, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This was just an introduced proposal that I couldn't find to have received much coverage. The bill was substantially changed when it was reintroduced the next year [47] and never moved forward in Congress. Don't think it really belongs in the recidivism article not having done anything; there's probably better sources to cover legislative actions more generally. Reywas92Talk 01:35, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2021_August_10&oldid=1039632356"