Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 August 25

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< August 24 August 26 >

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. Vanamonde (Talk) 12:36, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Third Ending

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

Do not appear to satisfy

DarkGlow • 23:38, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
DarkGlow • 23:38, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
DarkGlow • 23:38, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
DarkGlow • 23:38, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
WP:PROD
, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:48, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nom - sources are good for SIGCOV, per Ganbaruby. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:17, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shaolin Traitorous

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

De-PRODded with the edit summary "deproded. Article can obviously be improved and de-orphaned"; no sources were added and no improvements were made, of course.

Prior to my PROD, I did as thorough of a BEFORE check as I can for an English speaker and found nothing except trivial mentions in lists and database listings (oh, and pirate sites). No doubt the movie exists, but is it notable per

WP:NFILM? Not as far as I can find. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:31, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:31, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:31, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:00, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note. Deproder here. Personal attacks don't help. I have added the Chinese name of the movie and de-orphaned the article at the time of the deproding. Minor improvements, I agree, but "no improvements were made, of course" is inaccurate. I have helped substantially improve HK movies articles in the past, and by experience decent sources can often be found, mostly in Chinese language after some serious digging is performed. I wish this can be done for this article, hence my deproding, which as expected is triggering an AfD, which will attract more attention than a PROD and which hopefully will see a poor stub being converted into a decent article. Underwaterbuffalo (talk) 22:56, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for removing the prod and for your improvements to the article, Underwaterbuffalo (talk · contribs). I agree that for Hong Kong movie articles, "by experience decent sources can often be found, mostly in Chinese language after some serious digging is performed". This is the case here. Cunard (talk) 10:51, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete: Fails GNG/NFILM. Nothing on a

WP:BEFORE. Kolma8 (talk) 00:07, 19 August 2021 (UTC) [reply
]

  • Kolma8, I asked Ganbaruby (who commented below, and who can read Chinese) to have a look at Cunard's references, and they've confirmed it constitutes SIGCOV (as opposed to just trivial mentions or ads or something), so I'd like to move for withdrawl - will you strike your vote so I can do so? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:40, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Premeditated Chaos, you got it. Kolma8 (talk) 04:12, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note 2. I have made improvements to the article and added an English language ref: a PhD thesis that details the movie and uses it as an example across 14 pages. Underwaterbuffalo (talk) 02:05, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 23:46, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've reviewed the Chinese-language sources above, and I can confirm that there is
    WP:SIGCOV here. You could build a "Production" header here, and also use the review in the second source for a "Critical reception". ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 06:40, 26 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) 04:47, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mod Dam 1199 R

AfDs for this article:
Mod Dam 1199 R (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 is yet another promotional article about the artist/architect Mario Kleff by a COI/UPE editor who has now been indeffed. This motorcycle, which was a Honda modified by Kleff is non-notable, it caught fire and burned up not long after. Wikipedia is not a newspaper

WP:GNG, and does not seem like encyclopedic material. Netherzone (talk) 23:25, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 23:25, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 23:25, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 23:25, 25 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 withdraw. The user who made that article has since expanded it, providing more info.

talk) 12:26, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

William Rundell

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

After a brief Google Search, the only other things I'm finding about him besides him signing the role is him being on a stamp. Definitely not notable just because he signed the roll.

talk) 23:16, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 23:16, 25 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 per

(non-admin closure) – The Grid (talk) 03:56, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

William Thomas Larkin

William Thomas Larkin (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 is supported by one blog entry, which is also just a list of events in his life with no explanatory text. This is light years away from meeting any prong of GNG, it is not substantial coverage, it is not reliable, it is questionable that a blog that exists to track all bishops of the Catholic Church could be indepdent in a meaningful way, not one part of GNG is met. John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:44, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • A perusal of the sources shows a directory of the ordination of bishops in the US, which dirtectory listing is clearly not enough to pass GNG. It also shows one source that is probably about this Larkin, but is actually about his predecessor in one of his positions of a parish rector who demanded that he be appointed as the next rector, but that coverage does not meet the indepth requirement of GNG. All the other mentions are false positives about other people. I see no indication of Larkin passing GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:50, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not voting now and may not vote on this one, but I want to point out that some and maybe a substantial amount of the article is lifted from a website (try copy-paste Googling). Does it therefore qualify for speedy deletion? I'm not too familiar with speedy criteria.
    talk) 01:17, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
I went ahead and gave the article a copy edit to address the copy-pasting concern expressed by DiamondRemley39. Cbl62 (talk) 20:14, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious keep per
    WP:GNG and per guidance at Wikipedia:WikiProject Catholicism/Notability guide. One of the most important figures in the Catholic church in Florida in the last half of the 20th century and a close associate of Pope John Paul II. Larkin oversaw the creation of 19 new parishes and a diocesan radio station. He is also the namesake of the Bishop Larkin School in Port Richey (see here and here). An in-depth front page biographical profile was published by the Tampa Bay Times and can be found (1) here (part 1) and here (part 2). Additional SIGCOV can be found (2) here (part 1/part 2), (3) here part 1/part 2, (4) here, (5) here, (6) here, (7)here, (8) here, (9) here, and (10) here. Cbl62 (talk) 15:26, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • @Johnpacklambert: In light of the sourcing above, please consider withdrawing this nom. Cbl62 (talk) 15:28, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • No I will not withdraw this nomination based on a bunch of obscure hyper local sources. Especially considering that absolutely zero sources have been added to the article. The article is still only sourced to a blog style list source that is not reliable, and nothing changes that until someone actually adds sources to the article, and I remain unconvinced that coverage in a local paper is enough to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:32, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We have here SIGCOV in
Sun-Sentinel. These are major metropolitan dailies; there is nothing "obscure" or "hyper local" about such sourcing. And such sourcing has now been added to the article. Cbl62 (talk) 20:05, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. gnu57 04:09, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. gnu57 04:09, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - given the nominator has now been blocked for sock-puppetry and disruption, and is the only person here advocating for deletion, this can probably be closed per
    WP:SNOW. St★lwart111 01:17, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to The Bernie Mac Show. Less Unless (talk) 10:29, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wanda "Baby" McCullough

Wanda "Baby" McCullough (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
)

Non notable character.

talk) 13:07, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 13:09, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:50, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Other Half (2006 British film)

The Other Half (2006 British film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable film, appears to fail

WP:BEFORE
except film database sites, videos, and promo material.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.--Filmomusico (talk) 02:48, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.--Filmomusico (talk) 02:48, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I couldn't find any coverage of this movie, despite name actors being in it. It doesn't seem very notable. BuySomeApples (talk) 01:37, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
    Talk to my owner:Online 22:18, 25 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 23:50, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Hired Heart

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

Non notable film, appears to fail

WP:BEFORE
except film database sites, videos, and promo material.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.--Filmomusico (talk) 01:25, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of United States-related deletion discussions.--Filmomusico (talk) 01:25, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was procedural close. The article has already been soft-deleted as a result of

(non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:30, 26 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) 19:26, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@CurryTime7-24: no, the redirect RONGETZ ( aka Stephane RONGET) was deleted because of the parentheses, but this article was never put up for AfD. Richard3120 (talk) 23:01, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. See the external links section for several credits on the BBC (which is international) and France Musique, the radio network of France Radio. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:00, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The BBC playlists show the song was only played once, not playlisted or put on rotation as
WP:NMUSIC states. The French sources look better. Richard3120 (talk) 13:08, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:00, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:00, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
    Talk to my owner:Online 22:15, 25 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 23:54, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Ravana Brahma

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

Non notable film, appears to fail

WP:BEFORE
except film database sites, videos, and promo material.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.--Filmomusico (talk) 01:52, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.--Filmomusico (talk) 01:52, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
    Talk to my owner:Online 22:15, 25 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 23:56, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pilla Zamindar (1980 film)

Pilla Zamindar (1980 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable film, appears to fail

WP:BEFORE
except film database sites, videos, and promo material.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.--Filmomusico (talk) 02:40, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.--Filmomusico (talk) 02:40, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Can't find RS for this. Kailash29792 (talk) 02:46, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
    Talk to my owner:Online 22:14, 25 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 23:59, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Mosagadu

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

Non notable film, appears to fail

WP:BEFORE
except film database sites, videos, and promo material.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.--Filmomusico (talk) 10:27, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.--Filmomusico (talk) 10:27, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
    Talk to my owner:Online 22:13, 25 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 / withdrawn

(non-admin closure) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:03, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Major Chandrakanth (1993 film)

Major Chandrakanth (1993 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable film, appears to fail

WP:BEFORE
except film database sites, videos, and promo material.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.--Filmomusico (talk) 01:34, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.--Filmomusico (talk) 01:34, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Two full length reviews found at Sivaranjani magazine[1] Zamin Ryot (Telugu newspaper).[2] -- Ab207 (talk) 15:13, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Sita (1993). "సినిమా సమీక్ష: మేజర్ చంద్రకాంత్". Sivaranjani. Retrieved 4 August 2021.
  2. ^ Rahim, Alluru (30 April 1993). "ధీటైన నటనా ప్రతిభ కు ముసలితనం అడ్డు కాలేదు: మేజర్ చంద్రకాంత్" (PDF). Zamin Ryot. p. 11.
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 00:00, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Ksheera Sagara (film)

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

Non notable film, appears to fail

WP:BEFORE
except film database sites, videos, and promo material.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.--Filmomusico (talk) 02:15, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.--Filmomusico (talk) 02:15, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
    Talk to my owner:Online 22:11, 25 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. Sources found, nominator withdrew nomination.

(non-admin closure) Waddles 🗩 🖉 23:21, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Justice Chowdary

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

Non notable film, appears to fail

WP:BEFORE
except film database sites, videos, and promo material.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.--Filmomusico (talk) 01:43, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.--Filmomusico (talk) 01:43, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Rao, Venkat (31 May 1982). "చిత్ర సమీక్ష: జస్టిస్ చౌదరి". Andhra Patrika.
  2. ^ Palakodeti (13 June 1982). "ఎం. ట్. ఆర్. విశ్వరూపం : జస్టిస్ చౌదరి". Sitara.
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) 22:20, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Flashpoint (politics)

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This article has not been improved in years. It should be deleted.

talk) 19:53, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 20:01, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:21, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Amara Deepam (1977 film)

Amara Deepam (1977 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable film, appears to fail

WP:BEFORE
except film database sites, videos, and promo material.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.--Filmomusico (talk) 01:17, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.--Filmomusico (talk) 01:17, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
    Talk to my owner:Online 22:04, 25 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 film is a big commercial success in box-office and ran for more than 100 days. It is one of the great action films of Krishnam Raju. Please keep the film. Thank you.Rajasekhar1961 12:37, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to

(non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:52, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Faculty of Chemical Technology

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

The article has been entirely uncited for 9 years, which is a problem in itself, though when searching for this I don't believe this meets notability guidelines. This is simply a departmental section of University of Chemistry and Technology, Prague (which is a valid page) and is the only one from that page that has its own article.

The article itself sounds like it's just lifted from a web page and is rather uncyclopedicly written because of it. If this page is voted for keeps it should be improved and cited. I considered proposing merging, but given the information on the main university page it already has enough relevant information. Maybe a sentence or two could be added.

Sometimes, a department page for a major university is warranted if there is very significant research there historically, major history, etc that makes it noteworthy. For this though, I was not able to find sufficient sources to validate its keeping --Tautomers(T C) 21:38, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:42, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:43, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, already mentioned at target. Mdewman6 (talk) 18:47, 27 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 00:48, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jibon Theke Paoya

Jibon Theke Paoya (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 short film, no significant coverage from

WP:NFILM. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 20:50, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:29, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:29, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Nothing to help pass GNG/NFILM. Kolma8 (talk) 22:06, 25 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 00:50, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Scholnick

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

Successful, but doesn't meet

CAT:NN for 12 years. Boleyn (talk) 19:36, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:37, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:37, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - does not satisfy required criteria. Google search offers almost no useful references, most of the existing being wikipedia connected.--Melaleuca alternifolia | talk 20:49, 25 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) 22:23, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Altoz

Altoz (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 manufacturer of equipment. PROD was declined, but no additional sources were supplied. I've looked and only found more of the same press release/equipment catalog style coverage. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:28, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:28, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:28, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:36, 25 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

2021 United States Capitol attack or to a related, more spefici article. There is clear consensus that a standalone is not warranted at this time. Vanamonde (Talk) 12:45, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

H.R. 3325 (117th Congress)

H.R. 3325 (117th Congress) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article consists of only

WP:N
.

Of course, this wouldn't be an issue if we were on WikiLaw because I think the article is otherwise well written. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 06:20, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 06:20, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 06:20, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 06:20, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that
Act to Protect the Commerce of the United States and Punish the Crime of Piracy
" or occasionally name at all. (This one is technically named An Act to award four congressional gold medals to the United States Capitol Police and those who protected the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021, but that's too long for a Wikipedia article name.) The naming of a statute has little bearing on whether the statute is notable.
However, this article is misnamed because it's named for the unenacted bill (and only as considered in the House of Representatives); because the bill was enacted into law (which is part of the reason it's notable), it should be named for the statute. It is the enacted law (Public Law 117-32) that is the notable; not the proposed bill that led to the law. (As a side benefit, naming for the law itself avoids the need for the "(117th Congress)" disambiguity; the congressional identification "117" is baked into the public law designation itself.) TJRC (talk) 23:56, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @TJRC: it had four non-primary sources at the time of nomination Excuse me, but what? Which one of these sources were not primary. We have congress.gov, govinfo.gov, whitehouse.gov, c-span.org, and youtube.com (where the video is uploaded by the official White House YouTube channel). None of those qualify as anything but primary sources. Now you are saying there is six, but all I see is two: [1][2] (which were not present at the time of nomination nor could I find them in my WP:BEFORE because they don't actually mention the bill number). –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 05:51, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    TJRC May I introduce you to The Fable of the Kid Who Shifted His Ideals to Golf and Finally Became a Baseball Fan and Took the Only Known Cure Kingoflettuce (talk) 10:38, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as notable but I agree that an article name change is probably in order Kingoflettuce (talk) 10:42, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
On second thought, I'm more persuaded by the Merge arguments. Kingoflettuce (talk) 01:37, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per
    Aftermath of the 2021 United States Capitol attack#Posthumous awards bill. The content has been copied there (it's needed there, and fits there naturally; which is not to say that the style of prose is perfect). As an independent article, this brings nothing to Wikipedia. At this point it's just duplicate content. — Alalch Emis (talk) 19:02, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
@
Aftermath of the 2021 United States Capitol attack#Posthumous awards bill — Alalch Emis (talk) 19:06, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
If that's how the merge would look, I wouldn't object. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:12, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:24, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep.

(non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:35, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

List of songs from Sesame Street

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

AldezD (talk) 19:16, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
AldezD (talk) 19:16, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
AldezD (talk) 19:16, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:23, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:23, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I second the above notion that setting up inclusion criteria of sorts may prune this down to a more manageable/notable list. I'd try that before deleting outright. Sergecross73 msg me 20:51, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and source. The list topic is notable, so each element need not be, but each should be sourced to the primary source, e.g. an episode in which each appeared. Jclemens (talk) 20:56, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • FWIW, see
      WP:CSC for discussion of lists made up primarily of NN items. Jclemens (talk) 21:32, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
      ]
  • Delete.
    WP:FANCRUFT and no clear notability of the list in general. These are all bare mentions and the few list entries with articles are there because Sesame Street did their own take on them. Ajf773 (talk) 08:59, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep Just list the ones that have a link to their own articles. Makes it a valid grouping. Dream Focus 15:35, 26 August 2021 (UTC) Update: I created a table. Listing everything, not just the ones with their own articles, seems fine for this. This is like the article List of guest stars on Sesame Street which ended in Keep. Or perhaps list those with their own article or that were sung by a famous person who got reviewed for being on the show. Dream Focus 16:30, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Did the famous people singing these other songs get media coverage for appearing on the show and singing a song there? Dream Focus 15:37, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per Clarityfiend's sourcing above. High level reliable sources document the subject of this list. The list just needs clear inclusion criteria to be developed, not deletion. Cleanup can fix the cruft issues. Sergecross73 msg me 16:19, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Note that the sources I've dug up emphasize the performer first, not the song they sing. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:22, 28 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 00:51, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Miraheze

Miraheze (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:BEFORE shows nothing to verify notability. Waddles 🗩 🖉 19:13, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Waddles 🗩 🖉 19:13, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Waddles 🗩 🖉 19:13, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Waddles 🗩 🖉 19:13, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most of the sources are from Miraheze and other primary sources. There aren't many other secondary sources online mentioning Miraheze despite it being a popular wiki hosting platform, so it is unlikely this article can be improved to Wikipedia's standards. --𝕒𝕥𝕠𝕞𝕚𝕔𝕕𝕣𝕒𝕘𝕠𝕟𝟙𝟛𝟞 🗨️ 🖊️ 00:34, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I researched it and this seems like a pretty big topic, but unfortunately it hasn't been covered much by reliable sources at this point. We should make it a section of another article instead, like
Wiki farm. Dunutubble (talk) 23:56, 31 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 00:52, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kairaoa

Kairaoa (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 is about a fictitious settlement in Nonouti. Created with another ones in 2008 from a list of places in this atoll. --Arorae (talk) 11:36, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Ths discussion page was not created with the {{afd2}} template and never transcluded to a daily log. Fixed now--I have no opinion of my own on the article. --Finngall talk 19:12, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:24, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:24, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Failed verification, could not locate any sourcing beyond the typical bot-generated sites about weather, time zones, distance calculators etc. –dlthewave ☎ 17:54, 27 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 00:52, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tarakarawa

Tarakarawa (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 is about a fictitious settlement in Nonouti. Created with another ones in 2008 from a list of places in this atoll. --Arorae (talk) 11:35, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Ths discussion page was not created with the {{afd2}} template and never transcluded to a daily log. Fixed now--I have no opinion of my own on the article. --Finngall talk 19:12, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:25, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:25, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Failed verification, could not locate any sourcing beyond the typical bot-generated sites about weather, time zones, distance calculators etc. –dlthewave ☎ 17:45, 27 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) 19:05, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Umauma

Umauma (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 is about a fictitious settlement in Nonouti. Created with another ones in 2008 from a list of places in this atoll. --Arorae (talk) 11:35, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Ths discussion page was not created with the {{afd2}} template and never transcluded to a daily log. Fixed now--I have no opinion of my own on the article. --Finngall talk 19:12, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:25, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:25, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all Google and Google Maps do not indicate the presence of these places on Nonouti. I'm not going to comment on all ten of these, they should have been bundled. Arorae, I can tell this is mass-produced junk, but you can clarify in what way they are really fictitious? Reywas92Talk 19:56, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Reywas92:. I have no idea from which list those places where found and why their creator did a so bad work in 2008. But there is no such village or settlement in Nonouti. Uma means church in Gilbertese language, and Umauma is Church-Church. Non sense only.--Arorae (talk) 20:48, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the same goes for other connected settlements in Afd procces. I agree that google search does not back up all those settlements.--Melaleuca alternifolia | talk 20:56, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Failed verification, could not locate any sourcing beyond the typical bot-generated sites about weather, time zones, distance calculators etc. –dlthewave ☎ 17:44, 27 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 12:49, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nanibaba

Nanibaba (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 is about a fictitious settlement in Nonouti. Created with another ones in 2008 from a list of places in this atoll. --Arorae (talk) 10:57, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Ths discussion page was not created with the {{afd2}} template and never transcluded to a daily log. Fixed now--I have no opinion of my own on the article. --Finngall talk 19:11, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:26, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:27, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Failed verification, could not locate any sourcing beyond the typical bot-generated sites about weather, time zones, distance calculators etc. –dlthewave ☎ 17:42, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nothing visible at the coordinates provided and I can't find any information on this settlement through an internet search. No references in the article as of writing.
    talk) 17:00, 28 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. While it seems clear this isn't a fictitious location, no evidence has been presented that this topic meets

WP:GEOLAND. Vanamonde (Talk) 12:51, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Tetake

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

Tetake is not a village or settlement in Nonouti. This article was created in 2008 appears to be fictitious. --Arorae (talk) 10:49, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Ths discussion page was not created with the {{afd2}} template and never transcluded to a daily log. Fixed now--I have no opinion of my own on the article. --Finngall talk 19:10, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:36, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:36, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Eastmain:: still some confusion between a real settlement (like a small village) and a private residence...--Arorae (talk) 22:31, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
te taake (also written te take) is a tropical bird with red feathers.--Arorae (talk) 22:56, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The place mentioned above could also be a sort of neighborhood or street name, but I see no basis to keep as a distinct and notable community. Reywas92Talk 15:05, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Even if this is indeed a settlement, it would fall under populated places without legal recognition which need to meet GNG per
    WP:GEOLAND #2. Simply providing evidence that it exists or that people have lived there is insufficient. –dlthewave ☎ 17:34, 27 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) 19:07, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kunnamangalam Police station

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

Speedy was removed by an editor, PROD and PROD endorsement were declined by an admin another editor, I'm talking this to AFD, because I believe there is a legitimate discussion that needs to take place regarding this article to whether it should be kept or not. It was originally tagged as a copyright violation, and then eventually all of the alleged copied content was removed, however, this article still has many problems. It still looks like an advertisement or news article and I genuinely don't think this regular police station justifies its own article on Wikipedia, and it would make better sense if it was a section within an existing relevant article. Waddles 🗩 🖉 18:57, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Waddles 🗩 🖉 18:57, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Waddles 🗩 🖉 18:57, 25 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 12:53, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aristopharma Ltd.

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

The article is currently based on sources that are not sufficient to demonstrate notability: two are non-independent, one hardly amounts to significant coverage. In my search, I've not been able to find any significant, independent coverage. The subject appears to be non-notable per

WP:NCORP. Modussiccandi (talk) 18:34, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 18:34, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 18:34, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 18:34, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Metrojet Flight 9268#Aircraft. There is clear consensus to not keep the article. What little extra content there was I've added to the Metrojet article. I've also left a redirect just based on this event being noted in specialist industry sources. Seddon talk 22:58, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Middle East Airlines Flight 304

Middle East Airlines Flight 304 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable aviation incident. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:20, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:20, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:20, 25 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? 18:20, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:20, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This aviation accident has a rather high value towards Metrojet Flight 9268. Readers may as well be interested in reading it. Username006 (talk) 18:29, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As per Username006, a merge would not be appropriate. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:36, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It is wrong speculation (Speculation about causes happens after almost every disaster today. Go check this article for some of it surrounding something that happened about 60 miles from my home) after a disaster happens. Here is an example[4] from a 2001 plane crash. That was the basis for a very wrong WP article that tried to blame a crash on cellphones when the accident report said no. The article even got good article status with this shameful disinformation and a lie[5] about a separate investigation[6]. This was a minor incident and the news media speculation was dead wrong. Why are we giving voice to it?...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:28, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment I say the whole thing connecting to Metrojet should be removed per
    WP:UNDUE which reads 'If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article.' The accident reports on Metroject are quite clear why it crashed and this was I wrong above, wrong speculation by the media....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:44, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]

@WilliamJE: This was not a minority. A major theory of the Metrojet crash was a possible way if the improper tail strike repair may have weakened the Airbus. It also did come on Mayday disasters in one short episode. In every documentary I have seen on Metrojet Flight 9268, they have mentioned this Left, Right and Center. The cellphone accident had nothing to do with another article and could easily be merged with Crossair Flight 498 as there was not much to say about. However, in the page of Flight 9268, I can't exactly see much information about the tailstrike accident. Here, as said by @Martinevans123:, you can't exactly merge the two topics together. The only way to give information is by creating a separate page. Username006 (talk) 04:05, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete – Whether a tail strike played any part in the later loss of the aircraft is a matter for the Metrojet Flight 9268 article, but a stand-alone article on what is essentially a non-event, from an encyclopedic point of view, does not make any sense. The Aircraft section − a big chunk of this article − is also largely a duplicate of the one in the Metrojet article. --Deeday-UK (talk) 10:25, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Deeday-UK: I mean, it's the same aircraft. So isnt it expected to be similiar? Username006 (talk) 11:23, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: the FSB said they found traces of explosive, but that was never independently verified? Also the article says this (emphasis added): "In March 2020 an Egyptian appeals court ruled the crash was not an act of terrorism, and it dismissed lawsuits against government officials, Metrojet and Ingosstrakh." As far as I know, that is still the legal position. So if it was not caused by a bomb, what was it caused by? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:36, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The important elements of this incident are included in the Metrojet Flight 9268 article. No notability for a stand-alone article about a very minor event that is unlikely to have had anything to do with the later crash of the aircraft. (Note that the Metrojet article's statement that the Egyptian appeals court had ruled that the crash was not an act of terrorism is inaccurate. The court actually said that the investigation into the crash wasn't complete, so it was not possible for the victims to sue the airliner for allowing a bomb aboard the aircraft, and that there was no official determination that the passengers on that aircraft had died until the report was complete.). RecycledPixels (talk) 12:33, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to
    Talk:Japan Airlines Flight 123#Merger_discussion). Jumpytoo Talk 21:11, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Again, a merge does not seem to work and there is little information about the tailstrike incident unlike the one in Japan Airlines Flight 123. That's why a separate page is required. There are exceptions to it. It would be rather appropriate if this is included separately. Username006 (talk) 08:40, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

".. there is precedent on not having separate articles." Not sure I understand that. There are some articles which are unique. It could be argued that all articles are unique. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:03, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Metrojet Flight 9268 per Jumpytoo, Deeday-UK and RecycledPixels. This incident is only notable in the context of the Metrojet crash. It would barely even rate a single paragraph on page 6 of a typical newspaper otherwise. Carguychris (talk) 13:28, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There was a conspiracy about Metrojet Flight 9268 as you can clearly see in the page itself. Not sure if we should keep it as it is not that notable but there isn't that much info about it on the Metrojet page either so that kind of evens it out. KlientNo.1 (talk) 07:53, 1 September 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

WP:SNOW keep, for lack of a rationale based in either policy or reality for deletion of this article. The subject is clearly notable, and AfD is not the place to litigate content disputes. BD2412 T 03:54, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Peter A. McCullough

Peter A. McCullough (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 is a procedural nomination on behalf of an editor who is unable to currently post. With permission, their rationale has been copied verbatim from ticket:2021081510003236:

I nominate the Wikipedia page for Peter A. McCullough, American Cardiologist, to be deleted because I regard myself as a non-notable, private person, and that I want the article to be deleted. Wikipedia has published this page on Dr. Peter A. McCullough without his approval. By this act, Wikipedia on Dr. McCullough has published 1) false statements purporting to be facts; 2) statements to third persons with this Wikipedia page; 3) committed fault amounting to negligence; and 4) damages to Dr. Peter A. McCullough who is the subject of the statement page.

In other words, this is a

BLPREQUESTDELETE situation. Primefac (talk) 18:19, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Primefac (talk) 18:19, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Primefac (talk) 18:19, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Primefac (talk) 18:19, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Primefac (talk) 18:19, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 05:16, 27 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 by nominator. (

talk) 19:10, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Exploitation colonialism

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

Reason Mirkyton (talk) 06:26, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please ignore this AFD notice, I didn't understand the process of merging.

  • Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
    Talk to my owner:Online 17:34, 25 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

(non-admin closure) Bungle (talk • contribs) 20:44, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Athletic FC

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

Never played in the cup or higher than the Swedish fifth tier, so fails our soccer guidelines. It is a part of AFC Eskilstuna's history, though. Geschichte (talk) 17:29, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:41, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:41, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:57, 25 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. sockpuppet ST47 (talk) 19:23, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Trupti Rajput

Trupti Rajput (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 Indian actress, fails

WP:GNG DMySon (talk) 16:21, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 16:21, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 16:21, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 16:21, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 16:21, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per nom. No notable films to meet NACTOR and lacks coverage for GNG. Ab207 (talk) 18:10, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify The page creator just created this article and moved it into Draft space. I moved it back to main space during this AFD discussion but I think the best solution is to allow the editor to work on this article as a Draft since I think they were in the process of developing it when it was tagged for deletion. Liz Read! Talk! 04:29, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify Please move it to Draft back because it is not ready to be in Mainspace. I will work on it and move to Mainspace once its done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amjad4life (talk • contribs)
  • Drafity, Speedy based on the creator's request. A long discussion seems unnecessary rn. ─
    (talk) 17:37, 26 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 Moved to draft. ( Draft:Maaligai ) Seddon talk 23:10, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maaligai

Maaligai (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:SIGCOV. bonadea contributions talk 14:33, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 14:33, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 14:33, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. It can always be recreated if a film actually develops. BD2412 T 15:57, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify. It is
    WP:TOOSOON for a stand-alone mainspace article. Incubation in draft space would be an option to save what has been created until there is more coverage, if that happens. BOVINEBOY2008 01:52, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Draftify per Bovineboy Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:45, 1 September 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:46, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Zoophoria

Zoophoria (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 propose that Zoophoria should be deleted primarily because after searching I could not find Reliable Sources.

I could certainly find nothing that would justify the level of detail the page is written in. After searching I did find two Dice Tower video reviews (albeit by different people). The first of these was very helpful in giving an overview of the game play but disclosed that it was a paid for review.[7] The second was a mildly positive review, though it did criticize the art style and said that the game dragged.[8] Both of these videos featured in the failed Kickstarter campaign. That's it. Everything else seems to link back to either the game designer or Wikipedia.

It does not do terribly well on notability given the above comments. There is a BGG page but there is absolutely no activity there. The kickstarter campaign failed. It was not picked up by a publisher other than the self-publishing website Gamecrafter.

I did wonder if there was an element of self-promotion. However I could find no obvious evidence of that since the failed kickstarter campaign predates the Wikipedia page by about two years. Slimy asparagus (talk) 07:58, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Slimy asparagus (talk) 08:06, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*delete I put some work into nominating this for deletion, and I can't see it surviving on reliable sources grounds alone.Slimy asparagus (talk) 07:37, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: This AfD was not transcluded to the log, I have done that. —Danre98(talk^contribs) 14:25, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I am finding no coverage or reviews on this board game in reliable sources at all. According to Board Game Geek, the game was self-published, and I can't even find any listings for the game to be bought or sold anywhere. I did find a failed Kickstarter for the game, though. With all of this, combined with the fact that this article was created by an
    WP:SPA right around the time the game is said to have been released, leads me to believe that this was nothing more than an attempt to promote what wound up being a failed, self-published product that gained no coverage or notability at all. Rorshacma (talk) 19:20, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    I disagree with the timing. The Kickstarter was in 2014. The article was created in 2016. Slimy asparagus (talk) 19:31, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Kickstarter failed in 2014, but the actual game wound up being self-published in the latter half of 2015, according to its page on the Game Crafter website that was ultimately used to self-publish. Regardless, though, its kind of a moot point given how no coverage of the game exists either way. Rorshacma (talk) 19:37, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Ah I missed that. Did you find the two Dice Tower reviews? One was paid for. Slimy asparagus (talk) 19:44, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No evidence of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. What is significant is either not reliable or not independent and vice-versa. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:12, 27 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.

G12; Unambiguous copyright infringement ~TNT (she/they • talk) 23:50, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

London On Foot

London On Foot (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 see that the creator has done a lot of work but, unfortunately, this article does not belong here. It is either original research, or, if not original research, likely to be a copyvio due to the detailed nature of the instructions. May belong on WikiVoyage. Philafrenzy (talk) 13:31, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:29, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:29, 25 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 12:57, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hollywood Divorce

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

Does not meet

DarkGlow • 19:25, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
DarkGlow • 19:25, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
DarkGlow • 19:25, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:57, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets
    WP:NSONG with sources presented by Astig. They're reliable enough IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 02:25, 28 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 14:07, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Holland (band)

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

Do not appear to satisfy

DarkGlow • 19:36, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
DarkGlow • 19:36, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
DarkGlow • 19:36, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:32, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:20, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I don't think the redirect suggested by the previous voter is necessary. For this band, since they were active in the 1980s it's possible they were covered in old hard copy publications, but I can find nothing via a Google Books search. They are discussed sometimes by 80s metal fans in social media, but otherwise they are only ever mentioned as an early endeavor for the one member who was in a different notable band later. There's just not enough on this band to justify an article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:45, 25 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 13:17, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bahujan Kranti Morcha

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

Bahujan Kranti Morcha

Organization which has no references and does not establish

speak for itself, and neither do its references (because they aren't there). Robert McClenon (talk) 04:44, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:44, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:44, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:44, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – per nom. unreferenced and little indication of notability; 'basic' search reveals little if any, SIGCOV. In addition to everything noted by Robert, has already been deleted as CSD A7 in April 2021; Deletion log seen here. Eagleash (talk) 05:00, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Further, created by a seemingly blocked editor. Eagleash (talk) 05:51, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:42, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:20, 25 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 14:07, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Stephens (musician)

AfDs for this article:
Jack Stephens (musician) (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 session musician/sound engineer, fails

WP:MUSICBIO, all sources are trivial, simple credit lists, or unrelated to the subject. Question-mark promotional, subject is barely mentioned in any of the articles about bands he has been in. Was previously nominated by User:Instawisdom in January 2012 but closed with no comments. No independent sources have emerged since then. Jdcooper (talk) 16:38, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jdcooper (talk) 16:39, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 16:46, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 18:20, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to
    SPEAK 21:24, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note that he is a member of a late-period nostalgia version of EMF, having joined about 20 years after their last album. Joining that operation is not particularly notable. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 17:14, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:19, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Unfortunately this process is tough for this type of journeyman musician, who has played for/with a whole bunch of notable bands but has never received reliable music media coverage in his own right, and is only ever briefly mentioned as present for whatever band he's with that week. Not enough for a standalone article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 17:11, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to The Triffids discography. ✗plicit 13:17, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Brabham (album)

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

Does not meet

DarkGlow • 19:32, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
DarkGlow • 19:32, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
DarkGlow • 19:32, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:32, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:18, 25 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 13:21, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Derek Lee Rock

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

Does not satisfy

DarkGlow • 19:38, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
DarkGlow • 19:38, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
DarkGlow • 19:38, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
DarkGlow • 19:38, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:17, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - He was in two notable bands, which causes a problem because there is no perfect destination for a redirect. Even so, this individual article adds non-notable biographical tidbits and is dependent on the achievements of each band which are already covered at their articles. He has done nothing notable outside of either of them. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:35, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep
    WP:Music says "Is an ensemble that contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles." Being in two notable bands would meet this imo. BuySomeApples (talk) 23:37, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note that the first sentence of that guideline states that the person may be notable if any of the following conditions are met. This musician just barely meets that criterion but he has nothing for any of the others because he has never done anything notable beyond performing with those two bands. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 01:58, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Doomsdayer520: Musicians don't have to meet every criterion, only "at least one of the following criteria" according to the guideline. He's not the most notable musician on Wikipedia, but notable enough to meet guidelines. BuySomeApples (talk) 04:58, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We can agree to disagree on whether being in two bands is enough, but I absolutely did not say that this guy has to meet every criterion. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:22, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well how many criterions do you think he has to meet? I figured one was enough because that's the established guideline. BuySomeApples (talk) 18:05, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also thinking about the quality of the encyclopedia. What do we learn from an article on Derek Lee Rock that has
verifiable sources? He was in Suburban Legends which we already know from their article, he was in Melee which we already know from their article, he does some other things that have received no notice, and he twirls his sticks while playing. I repeat that the notability guideline says that a person may be notable if any of those criteria are met. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 18:04, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Threshold (band). Eddie891 Talk Work 14:08, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew McDermott

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

Does not appear to satisfy

DarkGlow • 19:42, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
DarkGlow • 19:42, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
DarkGlow • 19:42, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
DarkGlow • 19:42, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
DarkGlow • 19:42, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:17, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Threshold (band). He was with several bands, but Threshold is the only one deemed notable enough for an article here. (One of the others was redirected.) Threshold is the only band for which his achievements received any coverage, including reports about his unfortunate early death. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:26, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per above. Obituary mentions of Threshold (band) point to that being the proper place, as there are no sources to indicate individual notability. ShelbyMarion (talk) 12:21, 1 September 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. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 17:50, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PriceOye

PriceOye (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 NCORP. Lacks significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. The sources I could find were either routine fundraising reports (mere six-figure rounds, by the way) or non-independent promotional articles like this one.

talk) 20:32, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 20:32, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 20:32, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 20:32, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:15, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP is for multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with
    HighKing++ 21:32, 26 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 13:18, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Art into Acres

Art into Acres (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 articles is entirely composed of name dropping of people who have contributed to the project. DGG ( talk ) 20:15, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:20, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:20, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:06, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:06, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PROD
.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 20:41, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The references are almost entirely about donors, not the project itself. No demonstration of notability. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:47, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:13, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete most of the sources are from the donors to the organization, which are not
    WP:ORGCRIT. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:28, 25 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 13:19, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry L. Mills

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

Declined CSD

WP:NAUTHOR notability. Levivich 14:49, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Levivich 14:49, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Levivich 14:49, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Levivich 14:49, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coolperson177 (talk) 21:05, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a few passing quotes, burried in the 8th paragraph or so in articles, do not show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:09, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:12, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – there doesn't seem to be anything that would contribute toward GNG notability: being quoted in the press doesn't provide significant coverage, nor does a single-sentence trivial mention. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:44, 26 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) 09:23, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seán Yap Sei-Been Devlin

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

Advertorialized

blow it up and start over treatment at best. Bearcat (talk) 22:10, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Update: Creator has since
    reference bombed the article further by adding many more sources that weren't present in the article at the time of nomination; however, they're still all either glancing namechecks of his existence in coverage that isn't about him, or just plain don't help to build notability since they're not about him doing notable or SNG-worthy things. Plus the tone is still too advertorialized to stand without significant rewriting even if the sources were good enough. Bearcat (talk) 17:34, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 22:10, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 22:10, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:12, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Per nominator. Article indeed is not properly sourced, not quite in encyclopedic tone, especially for standards on English Wikipedia in 2021. I could be OK with redirect to When the Storm Fades, article on film has been created couple years ago by experienced editor and has far more "what links here" than article on director. Content connected to this featured film seems be much more notable than anything else mentioned in the article (mostly trivia news stuff like arrests, activism etc.). In fact I would have bit more tendence to keep redirect than delte whole article because of biography could have eventually potential to be notable in far future and content of the article would be saved in "view history". Dawid2009 (talk) 17:33, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Even if we delete the article, an administrator will still have the power to restore it if there's ever any future need to recover the deleted content. Bearcat (talk) 17:36, 28 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. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 17:49, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Moovly

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

Promotional article, substantially written by SPA. No evidence of notability under

WP:GNG. PROD removed by a new SPA that added extensive text reading like advertising copy. David Gerard (talk) 20:23, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 20:23, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 20:23, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 20:23, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Agree with nom. A simple Google search doesn't turn up any significant sources, besides thinly disguised promotional articles such as this in Macworld. [[15]] Plus, FWIW, it's nearly an orphan, and one of the only sources is now a dead link. Fails
    WP:GNG. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 22:25, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:51, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:11, 25 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. Please take this opportunity to expand the article though. The article is very threadbare and could easily find itself here again. Seddon talk 23:05, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chemplast Cricket Ground

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

Fails

WP:NBUILDING
, "The inclusion of a man-made geographical feature on maps or in directories is insufficient to establish topic notability".

My

WP:BEFORE search turned up only a brief additional mention in the Deccan Chronicle (a short paragraph containing no actual detail about the grounds beyond the year they were founded). A "citations needed" template has been on the page since 2016 with none further added. Looking at the grounds objectively, judging by the photos of it that are available online
, they do not even have viewing stands but only a medium-sized pavilion such as many local non-notable cricketing grounds have, so it seems unlikely that there will be much in the way of significant coverage of the grounds per se given the lack of facillities for anyone to visit the grounds as a spectator.

Finally, the Tamil Nadu cricket team are not based there - they've used the M. A. Chidambaram Stadium since 1916 - so the EPSNCricinfo data used in the infobox is obviously wrong. FOARP (talk) 06:46, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 07:03, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 07:03, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 07:03, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment it has been used by Tamil Nadu, even if it's not their main ground: [16]. And there are some sources related to it being renamed: [17], [18], but would need to do a more thorough search for most old and new name before voting. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:30, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Joseph - Happy to withdraw the AFD so long as we're sure those two articles on the renaming aren't flap-copy/PR. FOARP (talk) 10:39, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:03, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The ground has played host to Women's ODIs, in addition to first-class and List A matches. Passes the cricket projects inclusion guidelines for cricket grounds. StickyWicket (talk) 22:01, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Contrary to what the AfD creator says above, it is one of the grounds where Tamil Nadu plays their home matches. It has hosted 8 first class matches
  • 8th November 2000 Ranji Trophy 2000/01 South Zone Tamil Nadu v Karnataka f45348
  • 10th March 2001 Ranji Trophy 2000/01 Pre-Quarter-Final Tamil Nadu v Delhi f45717
  • 10th December 2001 Ranji Trophy 2001/02 South Zone Tamil Nadu v Hyderabad f46207
  • 25th December 2001 Ranji Trophy 2001/02 South Zone Tamil Nadu v Kerala f46232
  • 24th November 2010 Ranji Trophy 2010/11 Elite Group A Tamil Nadu v Railways f52757
  • 22nd December 2012 Ranji Trophy 2012/13 Group B Tamil Nadu v Uttar Pradesh f54445
  • 21st November 2016 Ranji Trophy 2016/17 Group B Assam v Maharashtra f57498

This is in addition to eight Women's ODI matches. Tintin 16:25, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, as it has been used by Tamil Nadu, and it has hosted major matches.Jackattack1597 (talk) 19:43, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to The Sun Ra Arkestra. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 17:48, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Luqman Ali

Luqman Ali (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:NMUSIC ----Rdp060707|talk 10:07, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ----Rdp060707|talk 10:07, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ----Rdp060707|talk 10:07, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ----Rdp060707|talk 10:07, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:56, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:59, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to The Sun Ra Arkestra. He is not mentioned at that article, but that is a problem over there that can be solved through the editing process. Mr. Ali was a documented member of that notable jazz ensemble but never received much notice for any additional activities. Most of his individual coverage is in the form of obituaries, including one very informative obituary here: [19], but that still does not add up to individual notability outside the group. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:18, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to
    WP:MUSICBIO notability. I differ slightly from Doomsdayer520 above, in that I suggest the Sun Ra article, where the subject is mentioned, as a redirect target. One day, someone may take the time to distinguish the two articles, particularly the list of musicians (which includes some involved in the Arkestra only after Sun Ra's death). AllyD (talk) 18:16, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Redirect to The Sun Ra Arkestra. The significance of Lugman Ali has to do with his work with the band, so that seems to be the appropriate redirect target. As mentioned by Doomsdayer520, his name can be added to the article along with any other past members. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 16:06, 2 September 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 03:05, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Basilico's

Basilico's (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 restaurant's only claim to notability is recent media coverage about its COVID stance. This media coverage only covers the COVID stance and nothing about the actual restaurant. As such I do not feel it passes notability guidelines. Osarius 10:59, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Osarius 10:59, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Osarius 10:59, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Osarius 10:59, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. How did this ever make the front page? WCMemail 11:26, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, how? My thoughts exactly!! 😯😯😯 Kingoflettuce (talk) 15:36, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I was concerned about notability as well when I saw the DYK. The article currently cites two pre-covid reviews ([20], [21]), but both are from local-ish newspapers. I think this probably fails
    WP:ONEEVENT, but those two reviews are something. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 13:17, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Seriously speaking, I did not create this article just for the lulz, but I considered that the COVID-era coverage has been enduring (across a one year range) and the PRE-COVID sources seemed adequate enough (disregarding any BIAS against "local" sources—does it matter so long as they are RS?) to get it to pass GNG, however barely. The nom seems to suggest that the COVID-era coverage is fleeting/trivial but I'd argue otherwise. While the focus no doubt is on Tony's interesting business tactics, there is enough detail on the restaurant itself--see the citations! And again, it's not a one-day Buzzfeed thing but sustained enduring coverage over the past year or so. Kingoflettuce (talk) 15:43, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
[At the very least, "NOTHING" about the restaurant itself is a stretch. See the citations!!] inre: "This media coverage only covers the COVID stance and nothing about the actual restaurant." Kingoflettuce (talk) 15:44, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A certain distinguished administrator declined to speedy delete this (yes, this has earned the holy trifecta of deletion noma) and, if I may quote him without his consent, commented that it was "well written". And don't forget the good folk at Did You Know? who made its Main Page appearance a reality. Consider all that! 🤣 Kingoflettuce (talk) 15:49, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A sputtering of recent news due to the nutty owners' policy, but that doesn't exactly make the restaurant as a dining establishment notable. I would sort of compare this to Shooters Grill (
    WP:AUD and don't establish notability. Reywas92Talk 15:48, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Are you surmising this based on a cursory glance at some of the sources cited, or did you actually examine each and every one? I disagree with your characterisation (sputtering, generic old routine...) Kingoflettuce (talk) 15:53, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom - this is an easy one. It fails
    WP:POV in its balance of information presented with most of it being about their COVID related behavior (even if I very much disagree with their views).ZXCVBNM (TALK) 15:57, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep.

(non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 11:50, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

7 (O.S.T.R. album)

7 (O.S.T.R. album) (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:NMUSIC. ----Rdp060707|talk 10:14, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ----Rdp060707|talk 10:14, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. ----Rdp060707|talk 10:14, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:01, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Piotrus: Correct me if I'm wrong, but I suppose for a Polish artist the Fryderyk is what the Mercury is for British artists. Can you supply a reliable source for this? --Muhandes (talk) 06:50, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Muhandes, The link above is to the official page (rotted, but IArchived). I'd think it is reliable? However, I can't comment on the importance on Fryderyk vs Mercury, I am really not very familiar with music scene in general. I think Fryderyks are quite important; the have an article here which generally is a good sign (and I did hear about them in few other contexts while working on some other articles here and there). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:08, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Piotrus: That can do, as well as the sources mentioned by Muhandes. SBKSPP (talk) 02:28, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Per
    Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award. As noted above (ref), the album was nominated for a Fryderyk, which in Poland seems to be as major as a Grammis is in Sweden. Presumably, more coverage could be found if we could cross the language and time barriers. --Muhandes (talk) 15:58, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
It also charted #2 per Billboard (ref, also ref). --Muhandes (talk) 16:27, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:58, 25 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 13:21, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

La Torre Golf Resort

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

The article's sole claim to notability is that it hosted the Davis Cup semifinals in 2009, which isn't enough and a BEFORE identifies no sourcing to establish notability per WP:ORG or the GNG. Like the other Polaris World properties, this article has been prone to COI/PAID editing, and when that is stripped away, there's not much left. Star Mississippi 21:27, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 21:27, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 21:27, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 21:27, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 21:27, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 21:27, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agree with nom on both articles. A Google search doesn't turn up any significant coverage of the properties. There are numerous Jack Nicklaus-designed golf courses that are not necessarily independently notable. These properties are listed at List of golf courses designed by Jack Nicklaus, so there's still a record of them somewhere, and they'll be redlinked to encourage article recreation if they ever get more media coverage. The developer Polaris World went bankrupt, and DoubleTree operates these now, but there's nowhere appropriate to merge the content. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 22:07, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennis-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 07:12, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PROD
, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:51, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:54, 25 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:43, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Andrews Breed

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

Local politician who fails

WP:NPOL. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:10, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:10, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:10, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 19:19, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas P. Richardson, at the time this was first created in 2009 our notability rule was that mayors were "inherently" notable if the city they were mayor of had ever cracked 50K in population. That standard was deprecated several years ago, however: mayors are no longer "inherently" notable regardless of the city's size, but instead you must demonstrate their notability by actually writing and sourcing a substantive article that dives deeply into their political impact. Specific things he did, specific projects he spearheaded, specific effects he had on the development of the city, and on and so forth. In 2021, a mayor of a place much smaller than 50K can be kept if a genuinely substantial article can be written (see e.g. Marie Curtis), and a mayor of a place much larger than 50K can be deleted if it essentially just says "Andrews Breed was a mayor who existed, the end." Bearcat (talk) 00:14, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Mayor of Lynn, Massachusetts. Articles about mayors must be more comprehensive than "they served as mayor (of municipality) from X to X. --Enos733 (talk) 05:02, 31 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 14:10, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tell Me Everything

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

Has one review on

DarkGlow • 08:36, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
DarkGlow • 08:36, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
DarkGlow • 08:36, 25 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 07:13, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Arnav Srivastav

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

Tagged for notability since Dec 2017. Appears to fail

KH-1 (talk) 06:48, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
KH-1 (talk) 06:48, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
KH-1 (talk) 06:48, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete without further ado. Obvious PR pushing page for an entirely non-notable person. Uncited page. Unknown works. Spurious reference to Beijing Olympics. Jeez, this is a no-brainer.--Trickipaedia (talk) 10:25, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:58, 25 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 07:14, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wohnkultur

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

Totally unreferenced. Does not meet

WP:NFILM. nirmal (talk) 06:40, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. nirmal (talk) 06:41, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. nirmal (talk) 06:41, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. 11 minute short film about 1950s era interior design. [25] Couldn't find anything useful to write a proper article, only basic list information. —Kusma (talk) 08:30, 25 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 07:10, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Dawson

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

Per

timeline of violent and dangerous incidents at the U.S. Capitol article clarifies this, saying this was a minor security incident and officer-involved shooting. Nothing about this individual suggests he needs an article of his own. Love of Corey (talk) 06:38, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:58, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:58, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:58, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:51, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. One-event crime biography (arrest,[26][27] trial and sentencing[28][29]). Sentenced to 11 months imprisonment for firing a BB gun inside the Capitol trying to enter the Capitol with a BB gun, pointing it at police and getting shot. Only gets occasional, trivial RS mentions when other incidents happen at the Capitol. • Gene93k (talk) 12:01, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per
    SPEAK 16:51, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete as
    WP:BLP1E as no sustained coverage. The 11 month sentence he received indicates the minor level of the crime, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:55, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete for the reasons above. BuySomeApples (talk) 05:34, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per
    WP:NOTNEWS. Surachit (talk) 20:52, 31 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 13:09, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Physicians for Patient Protection

Physicians for Patient Protection (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 organization, that, in my estimation, fails

WP:NORG. Only incidental mentions in reliable news sources, yet far fewer medical journal sources than I'd expect for an organization with so many physicians. As there is no in-depth coverage of the organization in reliable sources, I propose the article be deleted. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 06:18, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 06:18, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 06:18, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - but I'll note one thing; this is an advocacy organisation, not a medical research organisation. They are unlikely to appear in medical journals (regardless of their membership) as they don't conduct research or public results. They are essentially a lobby group, and in this case, one that would seem to fail our inclusion criteria. St★lwart111 06:28, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@
WP:PROD first is that there seems to be a quite active on-wiki battle concerning this organization, see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard § Physicians for Patient Protection; I expected PROD to be a waste of time as any of the COIN-listed editors are likely to remove the tag. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 06:37, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
No problem at all. St★lwart111 06:39, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:59, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I found those too, but the first name-checks the organisation in relation to something else (and it is among a dozen other such organisations quoted in the article), the second is behind a
paywall so is difficult to assess (though not invalid, but it doesn't seem to be about the organisation), and the third name-checks the organisation in a single sentence and then moves on to quoting an entirely different organisation. Not sure any of those could be considered "significant coverage". St★lwart111 01:11, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
I've trimmed some of the bloat, but there is lots more trimming to do. --- Possibly ☎ 02:47, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@
WP:TOOSOON, the organization has only existed since 2018 after all. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 02:55, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
@
WP:NGO requires significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the organization, which PPP does not have. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 13:11, 26 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 13:10, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Endrid Bookling

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

Biography of a medieval courtier that appears to be constructed out of passing mentions in a single text. I can’t find anything else online about him though there may be other sources. I don’t think the existing sourcing is sufficient to support a stand-alone biography even of such an ancient figure. Mccapra (talk) 23:06, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 23:06, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 23:06, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 23:32, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 23:35, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Generally we give a lot of leeway here with regards to pre-modern history; however, besides the one very minor sentence in the
    Saga of Haakon Haakonarson, so I'll poke around the original material to see if I can find any mention, but at the moment I'm leaning delete. Curbon7 (talk) 23:46, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • One thing I'm seeing is that Endrid may also be a misspelling. Pg 33 in the Rolls Series source shows his name as Eindrid, (in Old Norse, Eindriði).This is a stark difference from Endrid, whose Old Norse derivision is Æinriði, apparantly. Curbon7 (talk) 01:43, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok I finally figured out his non-anglicized name thanks to the appendix of the Rolls Series source. His name in Old Norse is "Eindriði Bækill", and the appendix describes him as a steward. Curbon7 (talk) 02:00, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • In response to Curbon there are a lot of spelling inconsistencies in the book but Endrid Bookling and Eindrid Bookling are the same person. --Tgec17 (talk) 02:09, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok so my final findings more or less. The only additional source I could find using his Norse name was from the a modern analysis of the works of
      King Haakon IV, meaning it's the same Bækill that appears in the Rolls Series source. With this in mind, my final !vote decision will be either Keep or merge. Curbon7 (talk) 02:20, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    • I find it highly questionable that he could have been alive in 1270 as he would have had to have been around 90-100 years old. Not unheard of for the time but very unlikely. --Tgec17 (talk) 02:28, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Tgec17, Right? That's the weird thing; the only alternatives are he's younger than we think he is, but even if he was 20 in 1217, by 1270 that would put him around 75. It's also strange that the analysis discusses a law that was written 30 years after the assassination of Sturluson, but footnote 148 makes it explicit that they're talking about the same Bækill. Curbon7 (talk) 02:32, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Tgec17: and @Curbon7: pretty sure the idea that people in the Middle Ages dropped dead at 30 is a myth. There were people who grew to ripe old age in Medieval Europe. Even Augustus lived to 75! BuySomeApples (talk) 05:50, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • I agree that its a myth apple but if you look at the age of deaths for the nobility in the 13th century most of the time they seem to live to between 50-65 assuming they don't die of unnatural causes. For example William Marshal lived to 73 and was considered very old at the time of his death. William's own father had lived to sixty; however none of William's sons lived up to 50 most dying in their 40s. (None of his five sons had legitimate issue and it was considered that his line had been cursed by an Irish Bishop) --Tgec17 (talk) 18:21, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • For a courtier who lived at least 75 years across the reigns of more than one king he certainly deserves his own Wikipedia article. The previous death at 1240 which I had marked is based off of his attachment to Skule Bardsson who died in battle in 1240; the assumption was that Bookling must have died with him in battle. However if he was a priest or clergymen maybe he could have avoided it? Or maybe he was off on business elsewhere? Also would it have been considered normal for very old men to be delivering laws? Often there seems to be references to elders handling laws so maybe this just happens to be a good example of it. The funny part is that if he was 90 years old delivering laws in 1270 that in of itself would make him notable. --Tgec17 (talk) 02:34, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep standalone article, or merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 05:55, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per arguments made by Curbon7 and Ipigott, which I find compelling. St★lwart111 06:37, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as I'm inclined to agree with the fact per above there's still actual historic significance and substance therefore enough for an article showing this. Thanks VocalIndia (talk) 16:50, 31 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 Deleted as

WP:G4. — Diannaa (talk) 12:44, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Alternative versions of Batman

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

Previously deleted WP:Fancruft article, recreated with the edit summary "Restoring this article because I saw no valid reason for it to be deleted." Waddles 🗩 🖉 05:51, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Waddles 🗩 🖉 05:51, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I think that the film, television and video game incarnations are unnecessary because Batman (franchise) exists, but I suggest that we merge the list of other people to take the mantle of Batman and the list of more notable variants of Bruce Wayne into the main Batman article. GeniusReading2310 (talk) 06:52, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete via
    WP:RUD: If an article is deleted, its history is removed and thus its content cannot be reused on Wikipedia—even under the same article title—unless attribution is otherwise provided (or the page undeleted). DanCherek (talk) 12:03, 25 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 07:11, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Niraparayum Nilavilakkum

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

Non notable film, appears to fail

WP:BEFORE
except film database sites, videos, and promo material.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.--Filmomusico (talk) 05:26, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.--Filmomusico (talk) 05:26, 25 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 03:42, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Dharmasere

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

Non notable film, appears to fail

WP:BEFORE
except film database sites, videos, and promo material.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.--Filmomusico (talk) 21:34, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.--Filmomusico (talk) 21:34, 24 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 03:41, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Chiranjeevi Sudhakar

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

Non notable film, appears to fail

WP:BEFORE
except film database sites, videos, and promo material.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.--Filmomusico (talk) 02:53, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.--Filmomusico (talk) 02:53, 25 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 03:39, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Sangeeta Samrat

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

Non notable film, appears to fail

WP:BEFORE
except film database sites, videos, and promo material.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.--Filmomusico (talk) 02:04, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.--Filmomusico (talk) 02:04, 25 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 03:38, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Runamukthalu

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

Non notable film, appears to fail

WP:BEFORE
except film database sites, videos, and promo material.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.--Filmomusico (talk) 22:50, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.--Filmomusico (talk) 22:50, 24 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 13:23, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NomadBSD

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

Prod removed so I'm bringing it here. No references outside of its own website. Fails

WP:GNG Notfrompedro (talk) 01:52, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:09, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A Google News search yields a few sources dedicated to NomadBSD. For instance, itsfoss, ComputerBase, and Root.cz. A regular Google search yields sources from FreeBDS News, Phoronix, and PocketMags. Searching Google Books yields some sources that I think appear relevant, but there are no previews available. Searching the Internet Archive and newspapers.com yields nothing useful. Based on an
    WP:RSN discussion (here) Phoronix appears to be no more reliable than a blog. The other sources are not discussed at RSN at all, but they don’t appear to have editorial boards or fact checking staff and I would question their reliability. TipsyElephant (talk) 14:38, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:07, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the sources I found do not demonstrate notability and no one else has presented potential sources. TipsyElephant (talk) 11:29, 31 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) 02:51, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional child prodigies

AfDs for this article:
List of fictional child prodigies (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 was reviewed for deletion in 2007, with the outcome 'no consensus'. WP has a clear definition of child prodigy: "A child prodigy is defined in psychology research literature as a person under the age of ten who produces meaningful output in some domain to the level of an adult expert." This article has been used as a dumping ground for 'smart kids', including from comics or video games, who cannot be shown to meet this definition. At present there are three names in the article, two of whom have no supporting citations. The other one is a five year old child in a Belgian comic who would meet the WP criteria perhaps if he existed. (But in fact no such character could exist). As 'child prodigy' has a WP deinition, the intersection of this definition with works of fiction seems arbitrary and certainly not worthy of a WP list. You might, perhaps, conceive a list of 'smart children in fiction' - but how then would you define 'smart children'? - and what would be the use or point of a list which included, say , Adhemar and, e.g. Hermione in Harry Potter. This article can never be anything but a bunch of spam. Delete Smerus (talk) 18:18, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:28, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:40, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as an inappropriate nomination. Note that the first discussion was at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fictional Child Prodigies. What's more concerning is that over the past six weeks Smerus has incrementally removed most of the content, including numerous references, yielding a much poorer list than existed before. Of course, a cursory review of such a list missing Ender Wiggin is a dead giveaway that it has been previously decimated. By all means, if we're going to have a discussion about such a list, let's roll it back to before Smerus' removals and discuss this version instead. Jclemens (talk) 19:31, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no objection to discussing the list as it was - as that will strengthen my case by demonstrating how the entries which I have removed do not meet the WP detinition of child prodigy. Nothing, by the way, in the article or the single citation given in the article on Ender Wiggins, indicates that Wiggins was "a person under the age of ten who produces meaningful output in some domain to the level of an adult expert", so I suggest better examples may be needed if Jclemens's case is to be supported. I am not sure why Jclemens has repeated the link to the original discussion, which I give at the beginiing of my nomination, noting that there was then 'no consensus'. --Smerus (talk) 20:25, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have restored the article to what it was. You can't go through and erase 99% of article before you send it to AFD. The dictionary defines prodigy as "a highly talented child or youth" [33]. Any search engine with a news search, if you check for "child prodigy" it doesn't just list those 10 or younger. Anyway, Ender was a prodigy, that's why they choose the kid to lead the attack against space aliens that had previously attacked humanity and which they feared would come again and wipe them all out. You don't just give that sort of responsibility to a child if there wasn't something special about them. Dream Focus 23:59, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Another indiscriminate list. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:50, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please describe in detail how this list is indiscriminate. I mean, sometimes you provide entirely appropriate, reasoned rationales in deletion discussions and actively contribute to the dialogue even if I disagree with your position, and then at other times you provide an
      WP:VAGUEWAVE like this which does nothing to the discussion forward. In short, you can do better. Jclemens (talk) 04:22, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      @Jclemens On the subject of best practices, it's always best to ping someone if you want them to reply :) Anyway, you are right, I could elaborate more. My problem #1 is that there are too many fictional child prodigies to make this work. A lot of anime characters, or otherwise characters from children books or animations, are prodigies in something. Ex. [34]. 10? We could easily list a few hundred similar shows. There is a zillion of works with fictional youth that have been or could be called prodigy. I don't think it is a definable trait for most. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:21, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @
    strategies in Wikipedia's guidelines
    that tell us how to avoid a list becoming indiscriminate. And if there are secondary and primary sources telling us if a character is a child prodigy, than I don't see the problem: Basing content on sources is the most basic thing here after all. And then I cannot follow the problem of length. If there really should be very many entries (the inclusion of which is supported by policy), then the list can easily be split, in this case with type of medium being the obvious choice.
Lastly I can't help noticing that the two deletion !votes so far seem to be based on "this list might become too long" (Piotrus) and "this list might become too short" (ZXCVBNM). Daranios (talk) 10:49, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Out of curiosity what do you think about merging the referenced parts to the main article? It's not overly long, and certainly, 'child prodigies in fiction', is a section that is needed and that could list examples. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:10, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus: As for me, as usual I would prefer a merge to deletion. However I do not think it would be helpful in this case. I did not check the quality of all the references myself, but just talking about "the referenced parts": There are ca. 50 entries which have references! I don't think putting those into a new section in Child prodigy would improve that article (while a short new section on fictional child prodigies, possibly based on sources here and sources found in this discussion, would). In addtion, I think navigation is one of main purposes of this list. There are blue-linked entries here which don't have references, which is fine in a list. Those should not be lost in a merge (passing scrutiny about their place here not withstanding). Daranios (talk) 10:48, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep First, I believe the removals by Smerus were done in good faith trying to fit entries to the narrow psychological definition, but I also think that even based on this some removals were unwarranted.
@Smerus: I don't understand what you meant with "one is a five year old child in a Belgian comic who would meet the WP criteria perhaps if he existed. (But in fact no such character could exist)." Could you please explain why "no such character could exist"?
Now for the current state I think the list is perfectly valid and should be kept:
WP:LISTPURP
.
As for the definition/inclusion criteria, I think the most important reason should be if secondary (and perhaps primary?) sources call a character a child prodigy. (And that makes many removals unwarranted.) Only if this is not the case one way or another do we need to make the editorial judgment if a specific character conforms to a definition, narrow or broad. Daranios (talk) 10:49, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@
WP:BEFORE search? Daranios (talk) 15:15, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
https://www.cbr.com/top-child-teenaged-prodigies-anime Dream Focus 15:47, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As for merge options, yes, I think combining fictional content in lists of real content is appropriate when separate lists are not warranted due to length. I recently came upon this in the case List of people with surname Taylor#Fictional characters. Daranios (talk) 10:49, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Unnecessary, indiscriminate list that could easily be covered in the main article as summary style prose as it should be. TTN (talk) 17:47, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with
    WP:FIXABLE but I am not sure it is worth or encycopeadic to trawl through sources to find one that calls the character a prodigy just to justify inclusion. I think a Fictional Child Prodigies section would be better on the Child prodigy page with a paired down list. Happy to see Delete too due to my general dislike of these kind of useless lists. Vladimir.copic (talk) 03:33, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
@Vladimir.copic: I think "the article has become a dumping ground lacking citation for many" is overstating the problem: Sure, there are entries without references (some of which are blue links still helpful for navigation), but the significant majority has references. Daranios (talk) 07:44, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Funny Comment how has
    WP:NLIST
    ?! 05:31, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
I see your point that the discussion has bogged down around one specific item, exemplifying some points of criticism vs. support. But
WP:LISTN has been linked before. Daranios (talk) 07:44, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More discussion on how this list does or does not meet our inclusion requirements (e.g. NLIST) is likely to be more helpful than a focus on Ender Wiggin as an example of why this list does or doesn't make sense.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:50, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems useful to anybody wanting to see how child prodigies are represented fictionally. Hyperbolick (talk) 03:04, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Was on the fence at first, but Daranios and Jclemens make very persuasive arguments. I'm convinced that the topic as a whole is notable enough to justify a list, and that the list will not necessarily be fancruft-y. Mlb96 (talk) 04:58, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepAs per above. DJRSD (talk) 17:10, 31 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) 02:15, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of companies mandating Covid-19 vaccine

List of companies mandating Covid-19 vaccine (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 is an unnecessary list, as it only seems to represent some major companies the U.S. and will be useless when COVID-19 is over since no companies will be mandating it by then. Until then, the list will likely never be complete and I don't see its need to be a Wikipedia article. See

WP:LISTCRUFT. Waddles 🗩 🖉 01:03, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Waddles 🗩 🖉 01:03, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Waddles 🗩 🖉 01:03, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of COVID-19-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:13, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]


*This list was part of the article

COVID-19 vaccine mandates in the United States before that article was redirected to COVID-19_vaccination_in_the_United_States#Vaccination_mandates. Vaccine mandates seems to be a legitimate encyclopedic topic so a stand alone list seems acceptable. Covid-19 may never be over and companies may continue to have mandates. If not, having a historical reference may prove of some value. The date the mandate is dropped could be added if that happens. There are lists on Wikipedia that will likely never be complete. Nv8200pa talk 01:54, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

@
prose noting some of the first or most notable among the companies to mandate the vaccine. It's also mostly unclear and unorganized for who the companies are mandating the vaccine for, whether it's for customers, employees, or both and which country the mandate is in. While there are many list articles that will never be complete as you mentioned, this is a more extreme case, because it's nearly everyday we hear news about companies mandating COVID restrictions/requirements, so this list will rapidly become outdated unless someone is there every week to add, remove, and edit entries. Waddles 🗩 🖉 02:23, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete The contemporary and fast-changing nature of this topic is likely to mean the list is never accurate. Completeness issues aside, this will need so much monitoring as rules from individual companies change and will run into

WP:NOTNEWS. Vladimir.copic (talk) 07:16, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Delete - Too indiscriminate of a list, especially given the FDA's recent full approval of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine. --MuZemike 11:23, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes that opened the flood gates. It means in some ways this list may soon be as useful as "List of schools that mandate the measles vaccine".John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:52, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This has the potential to grow very large especially since basically any company that requires any employee to get the vaccine can be included. Also for multi-location companies, as long as they mandate it for any emplyee for any time at any location they can be included. This has the potnetial to be very long, especially if some locations mandate all employers in their local create this mandate.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:49, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Also, I have to say on a certain philosophical level the fact that we not only inclde those who allow various exemptions but those who allow an alternative route of weekly testing makes this list mean less than it claims it means.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:53, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The list also has serious scope issues. For example, we have lots of evidence of various universities mandating vaccines for employees. So no one has really presented any evidence that the scope of this list makes sense. All the more so because including mandates on audience members seems to deviate from the idea company mandates implies.John Pack Lambert (talk)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The most common deletion argument, that the article is an

improper synthesis collecting albums from different types of lists that do not focus on "influence" as such, does not appear to have been changed or refuted. RL0919 (talk) 03:06, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

List of hip hop albums considered to be influential

List of hip hop albums considered to be influential (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Inclusion criteria for this list are necessarily arbitrary, contrary to

WP:ESSAY since 2019, which policy it also arguably fails. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 00:45, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 00:45, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 00:45, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 05:58, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Prior voters, please take a look at the significant trim just performed and reconsider. I agree with some of the points above. For years this article was stable and not full of gushing rambling, or just a mouthpiece for Peter Shapiro. But Robvanvee and I seemed to be the only ones keeping it tidy and we've fallen behind it seems. Yes, this article does attract a lot of drive-by fancrufting, but so do thousands of others. I disagree with some above, because Wikipedia has many established articles like List of films considered the best that is akin to. Not arguing OSE but there's a great many high-traffic high-visibility articles that are these list-dependent "survey" articles that aren't alleged copyvios or nommed for deletion. Cheers, JesseRafe (talk) 18:01, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article in its current state is holding to its stated form, that the albums are on the mainstream lists and the lists are what they purport to be, not best of the year or the like. JesseRafe (talk) 18:01, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (nom).
    List of novels considered the greatest as well.) AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 18:40, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete per
    WP:POV. Ajf773 (talk) 08:56, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment 2 - So I read the talk page for the first time, and ~12 years ago an IP intentionally modeled the structure of the article on List of prominent operas, which still uses that same "arbitrary" criteria of needing to be named on the majority of the lists consulted. I think the problem here is two-fold, one, opera is static and the lists won't change year-over-year, two, this article really should be moved to "...best" (plurality of critics) not "influential" (nebulous, lends to personal subjectivity or academic navel-gazing like the 3 dozen quotes from Shapiro). I don't know why every one of these film, novel, album, opera etc lists need their own superlative in the title space, but the creator of the article hasn't edited since the aughts. I would boldly move it myself, but don't want to obfuscate this discussion. I think if we used the opera model, and stuck to notable lists, e.g. RS's Top 500 albums was widely covered as news itself, not some indie blog's year-end rankings. Also, note that this article gets mid-hundreds views per day. It comes up high on search engines (as do the best films, novels, etc) so it's a topic (that is if we change it to "best) that's both written about and sought out. JesseRafe (talk) 13:00, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete By its very construction, this list is pure
    WP:SYNTH. There are places on the internet where constructing a list in this way would be appropriate, but Wikipedia is not one of them. I think JesseRafe's comparison with List of films considered the best is a bit misguided, because that list is constructed in an entirely different way—the inclusion criteria there is that each film must have been voted the best in a notable poll. Using polls rather than lists and only counting the top entry from each rather than all entries makes a lot of difference (though I personally think that list should have a slightly higher threshold for inclusion). That being said, I'm not exactly unbiased since I have been quite heavily involved in editing the film list and discussing the entries and inclusion criteria on its talk page. Maybe it would be possible and appropriate to construct a hip hop list in the same way as the film list, but that would be a fundamentally different list than the one under discussion and would need to be constructed from scratch. TompaDompa (talk) 00:54, 29 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_25&oldid=1042045655"