Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 August 28

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< August 27	August 29 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:17, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anton Zafir

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

Fails

WP:GNG fights are only routine report. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 23:39, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:42, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:42, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:42, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Another fighter who doesn't have the necessary fights to meet
WP:NMMA. Coverage consists only of routine sports reporting.Sandals1 (talk) 03:15, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete for the reasons listed in the nom. It doesn't look like this has participated in enough high profile fights or had sufficient coverage. BuySomeApples (talk) 05:34, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails
WP:NMMA.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:03, 3 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. – bradv^🍁 23:22, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Living presidents of the United States

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

This is nothing but non-encyclopedic

WP:OR for the most of it. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Living presidents of India. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:04, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Adding VP page. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:06, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The presidents who are still with us can be readily found in List of presidents of the United States by age. The rest is trivia. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:03, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, for the reason given just above. Yes, there are probably plenty of people who want to know who are the living ex-presidents but it's extremely easy to find out without needing a page like this. Athel cb (talk) 06:56, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per last afd, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Living Presidents of the United States. Especially the reason given by user:Edison. Christian75 (talk) 09:26, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per last afd, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Living Presidents of the United States. Especially the reason given by Edison --Marbe166 (talk) 09:34, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The vast majority of keep arguments in that previous AfD are of the very dubious (
  WP:CITEBOMB
  wouldn't be enough to meet notability guidelines, since none of the sources show "significant: coverage.
- Disregarding the supposed LISTN issue, the arguments of the previous discussion also don't adequately address why this needs a separate page full of silly statistical tables when this is trivia information which you don't need to be particularly bright to deduce from a simple look at
  WP:BIAS, covering a topic of interest only to a limited Western audience. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:38, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Strong Keep for the reasons set forth in the prior afd, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Living Presidents of the United States, particularly those given by User:Edison. It is a useful article on an important topic that is of interest to many readers, and, as Edison succinctly put it, it "performs an encyclopedic function by presenting the reliably sourced information in a useful form." The only information in the article that could be gleaned from the Wikipedia article that lists U.S. presidents is who the current living presidents are, but that is a small part of the information provided by the article. And all of this is just as true for the article listing living vice presidents of the United States. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 14:16, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @
  WP:BIAS - compare with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of presidents of India by longevity. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:36, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  - You state that the information in this article--and, presumably, in every other article involving the U.S. presidency that does not have a corresponding article for the Malawi or Paraguayan presidencies--"could just as well be covered ... at the existing one" (by which I believe you mean the general article on the U.S. presidency or maybe the one listing U.S. presidents). This fails to consider that it would make the "existing" article on the U.S. presidency even longer than it currently is, and that it is one of the main reasons that there are so many separate articles on different aspects of the U.S. presidency. (This is also the reason why the Discography section of the article on Saga lists the band's entire discography, whereas the Discography section of the article on Rush includes a link to a separate article on the band's discography; not all rock bands merit having a separate article on discography, and having the full discography in the article on Rush would make the article unwieldy.) Now, personally, what I care about is that the information be available in a convenient format, and if the consensus is that the article's information should be moved to a hidden section of the "List of presidents of the United States" article (with "Living presidents of the United States" redirecting there), then I don't think that it would result in a loss of information currently available to readers. However, before going down the road of consolidating all articles on the presidency into one or two articles, one must consider the effect that having a ridiculously large article on the presidency would have on the accessibility of the information. That is something that requires far more analysis than can be provided in this AfD. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 21:43, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both as listcruft and
talk) 17:39, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:05, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:05, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:05, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is just redundant listcruff Aircorn (talk) 01:15, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Before I weigh in on this particular AfD, could you please clarify why you'd like to revisit this question, given the strong "keep" consensus at
WP:CCC
, but is there anything different today that wasn't considered in 2017?

Furthermore, it's worth noting that there have been multiple AfDs addressing similar issues (but arriving at different outcomes):

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of living Prime Ministers of Sweden (delete)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Living Prime Ministers of New Zealand (no consensus)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Living Prime Ministers of Australia (delete)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Living Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom (no consensus)

Edge3 (talk) 02:19, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- Because, as already shown, that keep consensus is based on bogus arguments. As for the
  WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, the simple solution is to go ahead and nominate the rest, since they all pretty much appear to fail the very basic requirements of WP:NOR... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:40, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Well, I wasn't raising an

WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument because the four AfDs I cited above resulted in opposite conclusions. (Two "delete" and two "no consensus".) I've just edited my previous comment to include those outcomes next to the wikilinks for their respective AfDs. Edge3 (talk) 04:06, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete per

WP:NOTDIR #6 ("Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations"). I agree with nom that the consensus at the prior AfD should be overturned. Edge3 (talk) 18:40, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment: I am very confused by the idea that "Barack Obama is currently alive" could be considered a statement of original research, or synthesis. Surely, this is an objective fact, which we can be reasonably certain in saying is true or false. Our article on him does not couch itself by saying "believed to be alive"; what is being talked about here? jp×g 06:21, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, he could have been kidnapped by the Vampire Spiders of Aldebaran III and had his DNA extracted (fatally) to create a clone under their nefarious control. No crazier than some of the looney tunes conspiracy theories out there. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:58, 30 August 2021 (UTC) [reply]

Something being "obvious" does not mean it's acceptable for us to have a whole article based on such original synthesis (the "Timeline" table is clearly such a case); nor does it mean that we should have a whole article which only provides statistical trivia, when this is mundane information which could be briefly mentioned in the actual list of US presidents. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:11, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Firstly, the list of currently living presidents is unencyclopedic per
WP:OTHERSTUFF, I support deleting almost everything in Category:Lists of living people for similar reasons. pburka (talk) 16:54, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
- Comment That would probably require a separate request.2601:241:300:B610:ED19:73A5:40E:5FA8 (talk) 01:13, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment
  WP:NOTTEMPORARY is a shortcut to "Notability is not temporary", not that information is not temporary. Christian75 (talk) 14:48, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
- Comment "a directory that grows and shrinks over time is better suited for an almanac than an encyclopedia": But that's not what the article does; it presents the living presidents of the United States *for each historical period*, not merely list the ones who are currently alive. Plus, as noted above, the Wikipedia:five pillars provide that it is an almanac in addition to an encyclopedia. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 21:09, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment My preference for this page (and similar pages) is a site wide RFC. It would be strange for some of these lists to be kept for some countries but not for others. --Enos733 (talk) 05:45, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree. There is currently a New Zealand prime minister deletion request for four articles, and I suggested there two days ago that, "Rather than this batch nomination by country, it would be better have batch nominations by type of list". This would help to avoid country bias, which is one type of systemic bias. Nurg (talk) 08:48, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems too far out in terms of encyclopedicality. Nurg (talk) 09:07, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Merge, or Rename. This page presents information that isn't really accessible like this in other places on Wikipedia, and I don't think that its existence as a topic hurts the site. That said, I do agree that, as it currently exists, it doesn't really add much more than a list of trivia. I would love to see this article either fleshed out with more information and historical context to make it a proper article, or at least to have the contents somehow included elsewhere, maybe as part of a larger article on former presidents and the Post-Presidency in general? Peribirb (talk) 06:30, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- How is this not "readily accessible in other places on Wikipedia"? The only thing this has is
  useless as a redirect. There's nothing encyclopedic here that isn't already covered in the whole list of US presidents. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:48, 4 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. – bradv^🍁 23:03, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deaf football in Spain

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

Largely unsourced content, does not seem to be notable, fails

WP:GNG, orphaned article. So many problems with this article. Plus, it's too specific; perhaps "deaf football" could have an article, but "deaf football in spain" is way too specific and should be deleted (or maybe redirected.) Paul Vaurie (talk) 22:41, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. Paul Vaurie (talk) 22:41, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Paul Vaurie (talk) 22:41, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Paul Vaurie (talk) 22:41, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Paul Vaurie (talk) 22:41, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:46, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, no evidence of notability. We don't even have an article on deaf football (yet!) Giant Snowman 11:48, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sounds like a reasonable title and subject, is there a redirect article for this? Govvy (talk) 19:00, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Govvy, No there isn't one now but I found and restored Draft:Deaf football that got G13ed some time ago. It contains only a few tables of tournament results. I'll need some help getting it mainspace-ready before this AFD closes. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:22, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but... We do actually need a Deaf football article, it is certainly a notable topic. I found several apparently good sources about the sport, mostly from the UK. Perhaps some of the content and/or sources of this article could be reused for it. Unfortunately WP:WikiProject Deaf seems to be inactive, perhaps the Football project might assist. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:12, 4 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:15, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Skylar McKeith-Magaziner

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

Non-notable lawyer that fails

WP:GNG. Waddles 🗩 🖉 22:09, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Waddles 🗩 🖉 22:09, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Waddles 🗩 🖉 22:09, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per nominator; there are no sources that would show subject's notability.--Melaleuca alternifolia | talk 22:41, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – her legal career doesn't seem to have attracted significant coverage, and being mentioned in a few tabloids because of your notable mother certainly doesn't confer notability. See
WP:INVALIDBIO. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:00, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete fails
WP:TOOSOON.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:06, 3 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 soft delete. Based on

"soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. – bradv^🍁 23:03, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Karbala paradigm

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

Original research Ladsgroup^overleg 22:00, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:08, 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. – bradv^🍁 23:04, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PGi

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

I was going to stub this to remove the G11 material, but a search revealed nothing more than Yahoo Finance and PR Newswire. I am unable to find independent, reliable sources coverage to meet WP:ORG. So rather than leave it as an A7, bringing it here for discussion Star Mississippi 18:15, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 18:15, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 18:15, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 18:15, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 18:15, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 18:15, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 20:46, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the nom, nearly every reference is PR. WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with
HighKing⁺⁺ 20:27, 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 delete. – bradv^🍁 23:05, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Erzalmaniq Fawy Rawi

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

I'm not sure if the shared bronze at the

Athletics at the 2005 Southeast Asian Games... although the sourcing there isn't good enough to be sure either). -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 19:57, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 19:57, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. – robertsky (talk) 20:10, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I haven't managed to find anything that can verify that he won a bronze medal at the 2005 SEA Games, it's not listed on any of his profiles that aren't Wikipedia mirrors e.g. worldathletics.org. The closest I got was this interview about a completely different athlete that ran with him in the 4x100 relay at the 2002 World Junior Championships in Athletics – they set a national record but didn't finish in the top 3. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 12:14, 3 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:12, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

David D. Hamlar Jr.

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

Came to this article through CCI work. Made to seem more notable than he is by the repeated references, but in terms of anything substantial and independent, all I can find is this from Minnesota Public Radio. Since

WP:NBIO. — Ghost River 19:41, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Ghost River 19:41, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. — Ghost River 19:41, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — Ghost River 19:41, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails
WP:BASIC. Most of the reliable sourcing relates to his relatives rather than him, while the rest (largely National Guard) do not establish notability. Mztourist (talk) 03:11, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete fails
WP:BASIC. Intothat darkness 19:08, 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 and redirect to McMaster University. – bradv^🍁 23:08, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

McMaster Integrated Science

)

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

Per the AfD in January 2010, the article was redirected to McMaster University. In February 2012, User:Caboose The Vehicle Destroyer restored the article, as far as I can see without acquiring consensus. Per the arguments on the previous AfD, the article should be redirected. intforce (talk) 19:32, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. intforce (talk) 19:32, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. intforce (talk) 19:32, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. intforce (talk) 19:32, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete No proper independent sourcing, and it reads like a college prospectus. Individual university courses aren't usually notable enough for stand alone articles about them, and nothing indicates that this one is exceptional. The king of the sun (talk) 19:22, 3 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:33, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Joan Reynolds

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

Fails

WP:GNG. Sources are scant and plenty have been awarded the OBE. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 19:31, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 19:31, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 19:31, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 19:31, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:43, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails
WP:ANYBIO. Mztourist (talk) 03:13, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete not even the OBE, the MBE. Sources inadequate to meet GNG. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:10, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails
~~WP:GNG. JeepersClub (talk) 17:22, 29 August 2021 (UTC)~~ Blocked as sockmaster. Geschichte (talk) 17:51, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete I've done a bit of search and I agree with the nominator. Acrols (talk) 05:13, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:38, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Danielle McRae

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

Does not meet

WP:INDY and was unable to find any in-depth coverage. S0091 (talk) 19:21, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment: I did not realize this is a 2nd nomination but the first occurred in 2016, WP:Articles for deletion/Danielle McRae S0091 (talk) 20:53, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. S0091 (talk) 19:21, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. S0091 (talk) 19:21, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. S0091 (talk) 19:21, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:42, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:42, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree this person is not notable. While they do have several convention appearances and were nominated for an award, the award is not notable and I am not of the opinion that convention appearances alone is enough to warrant an article, and looking through the roles, most are minor characters. Additionally, the creator has been given a COI warning, which was a large problem in the previous AfD. Link20XX (talk) 01:22, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Basically no sources to establish notability. Esw01407 (talk) 15:44, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Deleteas per nom fails
~~WP:ANYBIO.JeepersClub (talk) 17:24, 29 August 2021 (UTC)~~ Blocked as sockmaster. Geschichte (talk) 17:50, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment: Creator of article is now part of an SPI. S0091 (talk) 18:10, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails
WP:GNG and lacks indepth coverage.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:17, 3 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. RL0919 (talk) 19:31, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bryan Berghoef

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

Fails

WP:POLITICIAN as an unsuccessful candidate - coverage is fairly routine for this sort of situation. St Anselm (talk) 19:00, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. St Anselm (talk) 19:00, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:43, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per
WP:POLITICIAN. Edge3 (talk) 17:55, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for running as candidates in elections they did not win — the notability test at
ten year test as a topic of greater and more enduring significance than everybody else's candidacies. Bearcat (talk) 00:05, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete fails
WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:20, 3 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 keep. – bradv^🍁 23:09, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Koo Ntakra

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

The article is an

WP:BASIC. Finally, a review of all the sources used in the article shows they are very much unreliable and are promotional, references are all in connection to promotions. Ampimd (talk) 16:43, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Ampimd (talk) 16:43, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ampimd (talk) 16:43, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bibliographies-related deletion discussions. Ampimd (talk) 16:43, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Ampimd (talk) 16:43, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Ampimd (talk) 16:43, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Ampimd (talk) 16:43, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Week Keep, some of the sources are unreliable and very promotional but subject does seem to meet #8nominated for a major award and #9winning a major competition of
WP:MUSICBIO. -Xclusivzik (talk) 14:17, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:59, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Xclusivzik. The promotional sources can always be cleaned up. BuySomeApples (talk) 23:25, 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 keep. – bradv^🍁 23:10, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Radio Today (website)

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

Not an obviously notable website. Very few non-primary sources (most of the article is sourced from items on the website itself) and little or no coverage in reputable news outlets or academic sources. Flip Format (talk) 18:55, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Flip Format (talk) 18:55, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Flip Format (talk) 18:55, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Flip Format (talk) 18:55, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Flip Format (talk) 18:55, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The website isn't just UK. There are Australian, American, and other versions. I suspect it's notable, but it's a very hard search term. @Neutralhomer and Sammi Brie: do you know where to find sources here? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:34, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There seem to be a lot of references to it, some outside the UK (such as Sydney Morning Herald) (see here), but nothing in-depth. As I understand it, Radio Today is a notable industry website at least. I agree it's a difficult search term; Googling the term "Radio Today" produces mainly links to the website, though the same thing happens if you Google other news outlets. I had slightly better luck with "Radio Today website". This is Paul (talk) 20:04, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I think adding to the confusion here is the fact that there's a completely unrelated site in Australia, also called Radio Today. This makes it even harder to find sources and citations for the article relating to the .co.uk site. Flip Format (talk) 22:35, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A couple replies:
- Rhododendrites, I wasn't even aware they did coverage in other countries. Their UK and Ireland sites generally seem to be the most developed and cited; the rest is generally an aggregator of a number of other good radio sources.
- It's a tough search term, and I do see founder Roy Martin quoted in a couple of places on radio topics (e.g. [1] [2]), but I'm also not seeing in-depth coverage of the site itself. It's accepted as an RS in the radio projects for UK and Ireland topics, but we don't have an article on RadioInsight, which is similarly very densely cited for US radio happenings of the last 10 years, and NMEDIA gave me a real appreciation for the role of the GNG in this realm. I have to lean weak delete on the availability of sources about the site itself. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 20:28, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete: At first, I thought this had to do with the branding "Radio2Day" or "2Day FM". But when I looked at it, I realized it was a radio news information site....and not a good one. It's not all radio station news. On the American side of the site these three articles just today and their entire "news" section is nothing related to radio station news. ~~On top of that, I hadn't even heard of it...which is bad. If I haven't heard of a website related to radio, it's not that notable.~~ - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:05, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutralhomer, I ran across RadioToday a lot last year when I had to sort out the Greatest Hits Radio mess. It's probably about as common a citation for our UK pages as RadioInsight is stateside. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 02:27, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Sammi Brie: That's probably why I've never seen Weak Delete !vote, since it does have uses in the UK. I still feel the non-radio station information (and lack of backing sources) really do it a disservice. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:57, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A well known, and frequently used website on Wikipedia, detailing developments in the UK and worldwide radio industry and therefore notable It could do with more references and these can always be added as and when they are found. Rillington (talk) 16:05, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Setting aside the international versions of the website (which seem to be less well maintained and more of a news aggregator), it is certainly notable enough from a UK perspective. Sadly the lack of references lets the article down, but as mentioned above its founder is referenced in other media. Also seems to be well known in the industry, and appears to have been active since at least 2004 (here's one of their articles from back then). Perhaps a solution could be to move this to draft space for the time being. This is Paul (talk) 19:19, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: That seems like a decent solution. The putative printed magazine that makes up much of the current article's content appears to have never actually happened, and if there are other notable things about this site, then those should be the focus of the article. If not a deletion, it needs a rewrite to assert notability. Flip Format (talk) 10:04, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The problem with relegating it to draft space means that it is far less likely to get the improvements the articles does need. Therefore, I feel that a better outcome would be the keep the article on Wikipedia but add the additional verifications tag to the top of the article. Rillington (talk) 16:58, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Radio Today is frequently cited, and generally considered a reliable source here. I think it is beneficial to keep this article. They have been quoted in The Guardian too.
talk) 20:07, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Meets
WP:GNG per above argument. SBKSPP (talk) 03:35, 4 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 merge to Ice Age (franchise). – bradv^🍁 23:14, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ice Age: Adventures of Buck Wild

)

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

Future film that may be cancelled, notable production info should be merged to the franchise page. There is already an active draft of this topic at Draft:Ice Age: The Adventures of Buck Wild. A majority of this text was already located at the franchise page before it was copy-pasted here. BOVINEBOY2008 18:34, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:44, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:44, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Ice Age (franchise) per nom, and redirect current title to Ice Age (franchise)#Ice Age: Adventures of Buck Wild (2022) or smth like that lol. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 22:23, 3 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 18:05, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

L.A. Insurance

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

Doesn't meet

CAT:NN for 12 years; hopefully we can now resolve it. Boleyn (talk) 17:51, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:44, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:44, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:44, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The articles I did find on L.A. Insurance were from Crain's Detroit and basically talking about its regulatory fight for selling short-term insurance. Nothing that meets
WP:CORPDEPTH. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:48, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete fails
WP:NCORP.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:21, 3 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 soft delete. Based on

"soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. – bradv^🍁 23:15, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Gyaldem Tish

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

The article is an

WP:BASIC. Finally, a review of all the sources used in the article shows they are very much unreliable and are promotional. Ampimd (talk) 16:40, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Ampimd (talk) 16:40, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ampimd (talk) 16:40, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Ampimd (talk) 16:40, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Ampimd (talk) 16:40, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Ampimd (talk) 16:40, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Ampimd (talk) 16:40, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:48, 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 redirect to World Series of Poker. – bradv^🍁 23:16, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Christenson

)

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

Lacks in-depth coverage. Most coverage mentions him only as a television executive. Tulkijasi (talk) 16:14, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Tulkijasi (talk) 16:14, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:51, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to World Series of Poker, where there is a minor mention, is probably better than outright deletion. I went through every ref link that worked in the article and see a bunch of passing mentions, but no in-depth coverage. Does not appear to meet GNG. MB 00:58, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:41, 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. – bradv^🍁 23:17, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Murder of Olly Stephens

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

I had it in my mind to create this article when I first heard about the crime, because I figured that after the legal restrictions were lifted, there would be significant media frenzy about the murder of a child by three other children - particularly as it wasn't a gang related incident like most of that age are. However, even since the verdict, there has been very little commentary on this case. The perpetrators and anonymised due to their age, but such perpetrators can still be written about in the media in a non-identifying way - I remember the

WP:SIGCOV covered in sources (where I've looked on Google) apart from documenting the process from arrest to courtroom. Unknown Temptation (talk) 14:06, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:34, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:34, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:34, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:40, 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 12:09, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Living presidents of Bolivia

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

The article contravenes

WP:GNG guideline. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate directory of information; there is no context for the information found in this article. There are no sources indicating that this topic is of interest to scholars. I am fairly certain that no reliable source discusses just how many former presidents of Bolivia were alive between 4 September 1884 and 15 August 1888. Surtsicna (talk) 09:31, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 09:31, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bolivia-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 09:31, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why this article or Living presidents of India are being considered for deletion while Living presidents of the United States is not. If the living presidents of the U.S. merit an article than why shouldn't the exact same list for other countries not? Four of the seven sources on that article simply posit on the fact that the U.S. was experiencing a record number of living presidents. Further, the Bolivian article in question cites Presidentes de Bolivia: entre urnas y fusiles. This is one of the most reliable and foremost sources on Bolivian presidents with the specific pages cited referring to a literal table of dates of birth and death of each president of Bolivia. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 10:01, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in concurrence with regards to the first two sentences by Krisgabwoosh. All of these must be considered in tandem. Curbon7 (talk) 10:23, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Different topics receive different amounts of coverage in reliable sources. It may well be that "living presidents of the United States" is a topic that receives "significant coverage in reliable sources". It does not mean that this topic does too. If you believe Living presidents of the United States should be deleted too, feel free to propose it. Surtsicna (talk) 10:30, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:27, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:06, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Wikipedia is not an
WP:INDISCRIMINATE collection of all conceiveable information. Geschichte (talk) 13:42, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:37, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my arguments at the AfDs for the same lists for the USA (1) and India (2). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:07, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per
WP:NOTDIR #6 ("Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations"). Edge3 (talk) 04:28, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete As with
WP:DELREASON#14 (Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia) applies. I don't see anything worth merging to List of presidents of Bolivia, and I don't think this title would make for a useful redirect. If we want to, we can add the year of birth and death below each president's name to List of presidents of Bolivia (as is currently done at List of presidents of India) and/or create a graphical illustration akin to Template:Lifespan of each President of India, but those things can be discussed separately. TompaDompa (talk) 16:28, 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 keep. – bradv^🍁 23:18, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Turncoat

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

This looks like someone took a

WP:OR. I don't think this can be salvaged, at best, I'd recommend redirecting this to Treason (probably more relevant than Betrayal and Defection). There is little if anything for merging, given that what little is referenced is either trivial or the references don't seem very reliable (or both). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:38, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:38, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nomination does not propose deletion. And it makes it clear that that there are plenty of other pages about similar topics including
WP:PRESERVE, &c. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:11, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument for proposing keeping this. Cited policies, particularly OR, is enough to warrant deletion. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:30, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  - A
    WP:NOTCLEANUP. My !vote stands. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:45, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    DICTDEF and OR are quite relevant here. And
    WP:CONTENTFORK to the articles mentioned in lead. A vague wave to ATD and such is not helpful. But I am sure nothing will make you change your "vote", no worries. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:28, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    No, DICTDEF and OR are not met because this is not a dictionary edit, because the concept is not original. And WP:GNG is easily met, as I have evidenced. Using substantial sources such as the book, I cited, it would be easy to expand and improve the current article. This is the point of the polict
    WP:ATD which therefore applies. As my position is based upon evidence and policy, my !vote stands. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:09, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Keep - it is clear there is enough content to substantiate more than just a dictionary definition. I'm not sure why
WP:LASTING is in doubt. Wikipedia isn't a dictionary, but there are plenty of reasons to include important words and phrases beyond simple etymology. St★lwart¹¹¹ 02:44, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Ironically, the term in its original form was used to describe the act of pretending to be an enemy so as to avoid the attention of said enemy; literally turning your coat inside out. It is now synonymous with treachery and defection, but that wasn't always so, certainly not originally so. That sort of detail - to my mind - moves this beyond the sort of thing a dictionary would cover, into encyclopedic territory. St★lwart¹¹¹ 02:48, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The only "tiny" problem is that we need sources for this. Otherwise we have a not so tiny problem with OR. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:00, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, yeah, and plenty of the current article needs to go (as unsourced OR) but there are plenty of sources for verifying the basics, like the one above and this one. St★lwart¹¹¹ 06:16, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody is disputing that the word is used, but we need
WP:SIGCOV (which is not shown in either sorurce). And in general, 19th century sources are not very useful. Otherwise, all we have is OR based on expanding a DICTDEF. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:40, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Not very useful? They both seem fine to me. They each independently confirm the genesis of the term and there are plenty of sources to define the way in which the term is used now. Factually covering its history and then its current use isn't original research; we're allowing the reader to draw their own conclusion. But a solid paragraph from each about the history of the subject is pretty significant coverage for a word, I'd say. St★lwart¹¹¹ 11:16, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I beg to differ. One sentence about the origins of the word is not
WP:SIGCOV enough to warrant it having a stand-alone article. Am I missing anything else in the sources? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:07, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

If it were one sentence in one publication I don't think we'd be having this discussion. But its a detailed paragraph (7 sentences by my count) in one source, and a shorter (2 sentences) explanation in another. And, as above, these are coverage of the word in one particular historical context; one which is different to those included in the article (for which there are additional sources). In fact, despite agreement from these reliable sources about the origin of the term, there is no reference to that origin in the article itself. So the article absolutely needs work, but that's a
fix-the-problem sort of problem. St★lwart¹¹¹

Fair enough, not one sentence (but
WP:TRIVIA? If we could identify that Duke by name, then this story might be best incorporated into their biography "his life also gave raise the English word "turncoat"). But since we have two stories that mix titles and neither gives names, it's probably just a "tall tale"... Ps. I noted that the 19th century source also gives us the Duke's first name, Emmanuel. That might refer to Charles Emmanuel II, Duke of Savoy. Although it is unfortunate the first (more modern) source seems to have the error(?) with Saxony instead of Savoy. Anyway, I'd suggest we add this story to the article about Emmanuel (although it would be good to verify it with more sources...). But I still don't see the need for this entry to remain as a stand-alone article.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:18, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

That's a solid suggestion, but as I said in my original comment, we don't have an article at
Traitor I think it would have the possibility of being far more substantive than anything we could manage at Turncoat and could easily include turncoat-related material (yes, "trivia" perhaps). But these etymological articles are being nominated for deletion at a rate of knots, so I don't think anyone is going to be encouraged to undertake that in the current climate. St★lwart¹¹¹ 05:10, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - example of
WP:OR. Do not believe it can be any more than this as most sources dealing with this word are just dictionaries/etymologies. A perfectly good entry already exists for this over on Wiktionary. Vladimir.copic (talk) 04:07, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:33, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (1) Undoubtedly it's possible to find references for a proper, historical and enyclopaedic article on the concept of the turncoat. It might be best to do a combined article on all sorts of traitor, and mention the history of the term 'turncoat' as part of that article. But current lack of references is not grounds for deletion; it's grounds for improvement. (2) We're over-using the dictionary excuse for deleting things. Lots of nouns fall in a cross-over zone where a dictionary might become slightly encyclopaedic as it discusses the origin of a term, and an encyclopaedia can sound slightly like a dictionary as it defines a concept whose historical and social contexts it's about to discuss. This is fine. The two sorts of reference work do overlap, and the encyclopaedia-article will ultimately handle things in a different way, with more depth. But the basic problem (Stalwart111 is right) is that no one in their right mind is going to try to write that sort of article, because the Avenging Angels of Antidictionarianism will pounce on it in its most embryonic state and tear it limb from limb before it's had a chance to breathe. You might as well move your article straight from draft-space to AfD and forget the bit in between. Elemimele (talk) 18:09, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I do think the subject meets
WP:NOTDIC doesn't seem to apply here: "In some cases, a word or phrase itself may be an encyclopedic subject. .... such articles must go beyond what would be found in a dictionary entry (definition, pronunciation, etymology, use information, etc.), and include information on the social or historical significance of the term." It seems clear to me that the sourcing exists beyond dictionary information to provide social and historical context, as a good encyclopedia entry should. Additional background from historian Andrew Hopper (see quotes).^[1]^[2] Suriname0 (talk) 14:03, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Thank you, but brief examples of use IMHO still merit but a merger to a larger topic (treason/traitor). Encyclopedia does not need dictionary-entries for synonyms of what is, essentially, a single concept. No information needs to be lost, of course, such an article can totally host a short paragraph on the history and use of a more widely used synonym (for some food for thought, I just finished an article on space travel in science fiction, and while the concept of hyperspace is arguably notable enough for stand-alone articles, words like subspace, overspace and nulspace don't need anything but a redirect and a brief mention in that article... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:30, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

ISSN 0021-9371
. The words turncoat and renegado, with the latter also implying apostasy, were in considerable use by the early seventeenth century, and both carried deeply negative connotations. The former was employed in John Foxe's Acts and Monuments by 1570 and on the stage in Thomas Middleton's Game at Chess by 1624. The civil wars made these terms more widespread, and defectors among the English gentry clearly did not wish to be associated with them.

doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199575855.001.0001. Alongside 'Roundhead rogue' and 'popish Cavalier' stood 'turncoat'—a term in use since the 1560s but increasingly employed during the civil wars. From usage at Oxford and Westminster, it penetrated into everyday conversations in provincial villages and towns. Henry Cholmley, constable of Tunstall in Yorkshire's North Riding, stood accused of berating his neighbours as 'turncoats, saying they were not worthy to come into honest men's company.' {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help
)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Ira Aldridge. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:06, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret Gill

Margaret Gill (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 says that this person is wife of someone known. But it doesn't tell why else she is notable. Also talks about children but still can't say what she did to have a page on Wikipedia. Should be deleted according to me. Aloolkaparatha (talk) 17:25, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Aloolkaparatha (talk) 17:25, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:34, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:46, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: Unless more details can be found on Margaret Gill, I suggest the additional background presented here should be included in Ira Aldridge.--Ipigott (talk) 11:16, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect, preserving her categories. PamD 16:52, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've expanded on her brief unsourced mention in Ira's article. PamD 14:30, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect, but improve the references. --Bduke (talk) 07:54, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect - I do think you might be able to cobble together an article for Gill that meets
WP:GNG, although you would have issues finding historical treatment of her from other than Lindfors. However, the clear editing decision based on the sources I found is that she *isn't* independently notable, so a redirect is most appropriate. Ref added to article, thanks PamD for the expanded mention. Suriname0 (talk) 20:21, 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. RL0919 (talk) 18:00, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vicky Badshah

Vicky Badshah (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 singer page has no other proper news apart from news about his demise. All of that news also kind of say the same thing. I don't think this subject is notable. Aloolkaparatha (talk) 17:24, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Aloolkaparatha (talk) 17:24, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:34, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:34, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing notable found in news sources, no articles in other Wiki languages. Oaktree b (talk) 03:24, 29 August 2021 (UTC) either.[reply]

Delete No indication of being notable. scope_creep^Talk 16:11, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non notable singer, fails GNG.JeepersClub (talk) 17:27, 29 August 2021 (UTC) Blocked as sockmaster. Geschichte (talk) 17:50, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non notable singer Nitesh003 (TALK) 03:40, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable singer, Fails
WP:NMUSICIAN. Bapinghosh (talk) 06:39, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete fails
WP:NMUSICIAN.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:22, 3 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. RL0919 (talk) 18:03, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lingireddy Muralikrishna Reddy, Ph.D

Lingireddy Muralikrishna Reddy, Ph.D (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

A promotional article with no reliable sources. Pillechan (പിള്ളേച്ചനോട് പറ) 16:40, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Pillechan (പിള്ളേച്ചനോട് പറ) 16:40, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Pillechan (പിള്ളേച്ചനോട് പറ) 16:40, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:45, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NOTABLE Article reads like a promo. Style aside, the references provided are sketchy. Most are to company personnel websites. A few are to local news articles that are actually not about Dr Reddy, but other topics, and Dr Reddy's name doesn't even appear. There are some links to the some books and articles that Dr Reddy wore. Gaff (talk) 23:55, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability not apparent. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:59, 29 August 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Delete non notable personality as he fails
WP:ANYBIO.Dixiku (talk) 20:01, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom fails
WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:24, 3 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 draftify. As there were no other suggestions on what do with this article, MiracleCloud is free to continue to work on this in draft space. – bradv^🍁 23:27, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Environmental-friendly Production (South Korea)

Environmental-friendly Production (South Korea) (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 very good essay and would make an excellent magazine article, but that is the second problem with it. The first problem is that it carries insufficient referencing to remain here.
We require references from significant coverage about the topic of the article, and independent of it, in multiple
WP:SELFPUB
which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact referred to, that meet these tough criteria is likely to allow this article to remain. Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the topic is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today.
It has been self moved to main space from
WP:AFC, which is something the creating editor is entitled to do. I was in two minds about draftification, something that can turn into move warring, or about AfD to get community consensus one way or the other. AfD won Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 14:18, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 14:18, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 14:18, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 14:18, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 14:18, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 14:18, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural comment: the article has been draftified. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:21, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I moved the page back to main space while this AFD is proceeding. That seems to be how these situations have been handled recently. I've seen other subjects of AFD discussions moved to Draft space in the past few months. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:17, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz Fine with me but I do think this invalidates this AfD. Draftify is an AfD outcome, I don't object to it being boldly done, but even the XfD template in the article notes it is in the wrong place (should be at MfD not AfD now). Technicalities, I know, just saying. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:02, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:21, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:11, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ventoura

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

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

Unsourced article about an app that is not notable. 162 etc. (talk) 15:56, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:21, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:55, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It already had one reference, and I added a newspaper reference. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:55, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - actually it had zero sources, as both are bad links. So now it has one. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:05, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lack of sources show this is non-notable app.--Melaleuca alternifolia | talk 22:45, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - doesn't yet meet
WP:GNG. One source is a dead link. Another is produced by the subject of the article, so lacks independence. So only one source remains, and that isn't significant enough coverage in my view. Meticulo (talk) 02:13, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Doesn't seem to be notable. The app is long gone now, and the article is mostly sourced to the company's own website, which is dead by now. Looking at the article history, a large portion of it consists of personal insults towards one of the employees, some of which were apparently severe enough to be hidden even from administrators. JIP | Talk 03:21, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not significant, there are 100,000s of dead apps out there. Article body reads as if the app is still available. Teraplane (talk) 08:18, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Two references from reliable sources (one a news site, the other a newspaper). Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:05, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ardern, Lucy (2015-04-15). "Students strike gold with travel app". Gold Coast Bulletin. Retrieved 2021-08-28.

"Weekly App Pick: Ventoura 'Tinder for travelers' | News". DailyHive. December 19, 2017. Retrieved 2021-08-29. The old Vancity Buzz article about Ventoura has been moved to DailyHive.

Keep per
WP:GNG. Cabrils (talk) 23:17, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete almost al the sources discuss it only in context of other similar apps. The ones discussing it specifically are PR-style reviews, e.g. "The European summer is a really important opportunity for us, " DGG ( talk ) 09:05, 4 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. – bradv^🍁 23:37, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Er Beshi Bhalobasha Jay Na

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Er Beshi Bhalobasha Jay Na

Articles for deletion/Er Beshi Bhalobasha Jay Na (2nd nomination)

Er Beshi Bhalobasha Jay Na (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 following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Er Beshi Bhalobasha Jay Na, some new sources appear to be have added, but I still can't find evidence that this film is notable. -- Asartea ^Talk ^| ^Contribs 14:34, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Asartea ^Talk ^| ^Contribs 14:34, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. -- Asartea ^Talk ^| ^Contribs 14:34, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to
WP:NFILM. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:13, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. No significant coverage or review about this film. Fails
WP:NFILM. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 16:05, 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. – bradv^🍁 23:35, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of spouses of presidents of Croatia

List of spouses of presidents of Croatia (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 not a thing; this topic receives virtually no coverage, let alone "significant coverage in reliable sources". Hardly any citizen of Croatia could name the spouse of their president. The article fails
WP:GNG. Surtsicna (talk) 12:00, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 12:00, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 12:00, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I agree that this is not really a thing, but I'm surprised at the claim that "Hardly any citizen of Croatia could name the spouse of their president." Unfortunately I don't know any Croatians I can ask, but most citizens of France know that the President's wife is
Carrie Symonds. Is it really so different in Croatia? Athel cb (talk) 14:24, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Jill Biden, Birgitte Macron and Carrie Symonds are regularly covered in mainstream media. The spouse of the president of Croatia has no societal role. They do their own thing. I have, of course, not conducted a survey, but anecdotal evidence from everyday life and the fact that any mention of the spouses in the media requires an explanatory apposition suggest to me that the vast majority could not name them and would not recognize them by their name alone. But what matters to this discussion is the lack of published sources exploring the marital ties of the Croatian presidents. Surtsicna (talk) 00:16, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question Would it be accurate to say that this is WP:NOTATHING (one day we'll have to turn that redlink blue...), and that the arguments presented at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spouse of the Prime Minister of Singapore (which resulted in deletion) apply here as well? TompaDompa (talk) 14:45, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it appears so, since neither position entails any role in society and neither is discussed as such in reliable sources. Surtsicna (talk) 00:16, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:26, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's a relatively minor social distinction, but that does not mean it doesn't get regular coverage in the mainstream press. I agree with removing the whole lineage stuff from the infoboxes, but anyone who follows politics in Croatia has heard of a lot of these people. I'd actually argue that having this list might alleviate the need for individual articles for some of the lesser known ones. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:50, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hearing of them is one thing, but being able to recognize them or name them is another. What matters is that there is, to my knowledge, no in-depth coverage of the position of the spouse. My concern is that the existence of the list rests on the presumption that the position is notable in itself, which would make editors further assume that those who are married to the presidents are inherently notable. Surtsicna (talk) 12:22, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, that first statement is just not right, because a huge number of people could easily name Ankica Tuđman, Mirjana Sanader, probably others - whoever had a fair bit of mainstream press coverage. The list is fundamentally political trivia, but that doesn't mean the concept doesn't exist or is entirely not worth describing. Like I said earlier, if we remove the list, then we have nowhere to merge/redirect less notable entries later; watching one list seems preferable to having to watch N stubs. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 02:35, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:44, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:55, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As you can see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Spouses_of_national_leaders there are a lot of such lists. There is no reason to delete only one of them. We should delete all of them (from USA to Uzbekistan) or keep all of them. - GorgonaJS (talk) 16:16, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We did already delete Spouse of the Prime Minister of Singapore though, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spouse of the Prime Minister of Singapore. TompaDompa (talk) 17:47, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing
WP:LISTN. That other similar pages exist (in countries where the circumstances might be different) is not an argument for keeping this page. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:51, 4 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. Girth Summit _(blether) 15:48, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GauTV

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

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

Fails
WP:GNG. Bbb23 (talk) 18:26, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:40, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:40, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Going by this Instagram post, the last time the network was active was June 21, 2019. Website is still a
chatter) 03:10, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment That’s not true, just checked DSTV Channel 265 and the network exists and broadcasts 24/7 TapticInfo (talk) 10:10, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Accotrding to the official DStv guide, there is no channel name on 265, and I see none of the GauTV programming talked about on their website. If they're still on the air at all, they've just decided to collect tele-preacher money and call it a day as long as DStv keeps them on the air. As mentioned before, their social presence was last updated in 2019, and their Twitter and Facebook accounts were actually suspended for suspicious activity, suggesting a network on auto-pilot with no actual programming. chatter) 20:37, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Network is Still active on DSTV should be kept because of its prevalence on the DSTV platform. TapticInfo (talk) 10:10, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The channel appears to fail GNG, and no specific standards exist with
WP:ORG that would allow us to keep it based on its prevalence within a given platform. However, if sources with significant coverage of the channel can be found, I would have no issue with changing my !vote. BilledMammal (talk) 23:00, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 11:23, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:49, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom the channel does not satisfy
~~WP:GNG.JeepersClub (talk) 17:29, 29 August 2021 (UTC)~~ Blocked as sockmaster. Geschichte (talk) 17:50, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as failing the GNG. This channel seems minor, and while being on DStv makes notability likely for a good number of services, it is not a certainty. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 00:46, 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 no consensus. – bradv^🍁 00:07, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bunnyman 2

Bunnyman 2 (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) 22:37, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of United States-related deletion discussions.--Filmomusico (talk) 22:37, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Weak keep because a number of reviews alreadt exist (albeit under various subtitles). There's articles about the film in Starburst,[4] Dread Central,[5] and The Independent Critic (doesn't have a Wikipedia page but is used by Rotten Tomatoes),[6]. Part of the problem is that the film was alternately billed as Bunnyman 2, The Bunnyman Massacre, and Bunnyman Resurrection depending on country. There's also other reviews in smaller magazines that can be added. BuySomeApples (talk) 04:31, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why is this film included in India-related deletion discussions? It doesn't look like any aspect of production was completed in India, and it's an American movie filmed in California. BuySomeApples (talk) 04:32, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. Thanks for the heads up. I was doing some deletion discussions on Indian films and forgot to switch it. :)--Filmomusico (talk) 05:56, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry about it! BuySomeApples (talk) 08:02, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to
WP:NOPAGE, there's no reason not to cover both sequels at the article on the original film. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:58, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment One of a large set of similar AfDs by this nominator, none of which were transcluded to a daily log. Fixing now--I am neutral on the nominations themselves. --Finngall ^talk 17:51, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —
^Talk∕_Contribs 11:09, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:46, 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 14:33, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bhaijaan

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

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

Filming has not begun per every citation in the article, per
WP:NFF this should not have a mainspace article, there is already an exact copy of this at Draft:Bhaijhaan BOVINEBOY2008 13:05, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
Smitty Werben 14:25, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
Smitty Werben 14:25, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete
WP:TOOSOON. Bapinghosh (talk) 06:42, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete: per
WP:NFF, creator (Leofrancis355) needs to SLOW DOWN and stop creating mainspace articles when it's been moved to draft and declined, this is starting to get disruptive. Ravensfire (talk) 14:07, 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. ✗plicit 14:34, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Houston Bed and Breakfast

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

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

The sources mentioned are unequivocal adverts and a page of the Kansas Bed&Breakfast Association. Independent coverage, and hence notability, is not established. Kleuske (talk) 13:04, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Kleuske (talk) 13:04, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. Kleuske (talk) 13:04, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:23, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:23, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It isn't notable as a bed and breakfast, but it is notable as an historic building. It is listed in the Kansas Register of Historic Places, but not in the National Register of Historic Places. Designation as a notable place counts as independent coverage. Once the AFD is finished, the article should be moved to the building name rather than the BnB name. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:50, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the first three sources are not advertisements. Those references are to listings at the Kansas Historical Society, an organization that has long been considered a reliable source on Wikipedia. Articles on such historical locations are normally kept.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:53, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Eastmain's comments. Hughesdarren (talk) 22:57, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. but rename to its proper historic name on the Reigister: John Housten Housen. the "bed and breakfast" poart is a modern promotional addition--I see Eastmain came to the same conclusion.— Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)
comment good idea on the rename.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:58, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename per above .It is notable as a historic building but not as a Bed and Breakfast.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:26, 3 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 keep. – bradv^🍁 00:02, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jorge Soler (gymnast)

Jorge Soler (gymnast) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Though he meets
WP:NOLY (which presumes notability) by participating in the 1948 Olympics, there are no sources besides a ref to a stats database. Does not meet GNG. Natg 19 (talk) 00:02, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 00:02, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 00:02, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. All Olympians are notable, even in the absence of in-depth coverage. Given how newspapers and magazines provide blanket coverage of the Olympics and Pan-American Games, it's almost certain that Argentinian newspapers and magazines of the 1948-1951 period have lots of coverage of Jorge Soler. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:51, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as per User:Eastmain - all Olympians are notable. Ingratis (talk) 15:15, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:52, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the above and he won a medal at the Pan American Games too. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:01, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as notable. Also, no indication that nominator even looked for sources. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 21:53, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per current policy.
WP:NOLY is under discussion, but it hasn't been changed yet. Gildir (talk) 01:14, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Where is this discussion for changing WP:NOLY? Natg 19 (talk) 05:11, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
At the moment this is being discussed at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(sports)#Notability_of_Paralympic_Athletes. Simeon (talk) 10:47, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable sports person per
WP:NOLY. Di xiku 21:55, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. None of the keep !votes have rebutted the lack of GNG sources. Claims that all Olympians are notable are completely at odds with the governing guideline (NSPORT), which reiterates multiple times in the FAQs at the top of the page that sport-specific rules-of-thumb do not replace the GNG and that in fact all articles must demonstrate GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 18:28, 3 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 keep. – bradv^🍁 00:00, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jamatami

Jamatami (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:NBAND. Nothing significant has been written about this group in reliable sources. Binksternet (talk) 00:34, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Binksternet (talk) 00:34, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 02:32, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Automatically notable because one of its songs charted. I added some references that appear in the corresponding German Wikipedia article. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:53, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:57, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:49, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, passes the music band notability
WP:NBAND. Di xiku 21:50, 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 speedy keep. Nom is a
(non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:08, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Ameed Zaghal

Ameed Zaghal (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 artist fails
siginificant i.e. no in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. DJRSD (talk) 03:43, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DJRSD (talk) 03:43, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. DJRSD (talk) 03:43, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. DJRSD (talk) 03:43, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, the singer is famous and has 4 albums and his notice is very strong in Palestine, but there are no independent links. The number of his followers on Facebook is 1 million people. The number of views on YouTube exceeded 50 million, please reconsider the deletion (User:DJRSD Jakelonaes (talk) 09:42, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:48, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello https://m.youtube.com/channel/UCdBfyZaRCqjQVGK8U3ygCew/ Auto genrated by youtube https://www.facebook.com/ameedabdalazeezzaghalofficial 2 milion followers The artist is very noticeable in Palestine, but I could not find independent sources because of the lack of media coverage in Palestine. This is the idea, but he is a very popular and noticeable artist, and I can prove that Jakelonaes (talk) 07:57, 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 delete. – bradv^🍁 23:59, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

YNW BSlime

YNW BSlime (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 rapper. May be
WP:GNG DJRSD (talk) 03:45, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DJRSD (talk) 03:45, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. DJRSD (talk) 03:45, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:05, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:05, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Noting the author's comment on the talk page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:47, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or, more charitably, Merge with his more notable older brother,
WP:INHERIT, which is not acceptable criteria for wikipedia. Other coverage is run of the mill promo announcements in mostly non-RS. ShelbyMarion (talk) 12:14, 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. ✗plicit 23:46, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Karuna Medical College

Karuna Medical College (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Doesn't appear to meet
WP:ATD. Boleyn (talk) 12:46, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:25, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:25, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:26, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I couldn't find a good ATD either when I cleaned it up. The program it's affiliated with (Kerala University of Health Sciences) doensn't mention it and the relationship isn't clear in English sourcing to merge. Star Mississippi 16:41, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - although a redirect to the Kerala page would be appropriate, if someone added a sentence there about this institution. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:57, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Un-referenced article that fails
~~WP:NORG.JeepersClub (talk) 17:32, 29 August 2021 (UTC)~~ Blocked as sockmaster. Geschichte (talk) 17:49, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy Deletion Multi7001 (talk) 18:22, 3 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 keep -- withdrawn by nominator.
(non-admin closure) Coolperson177 (talk) 22:23, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Camile (restaurant chain)

Camile (restaurant chain) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

~~Restaurant chain does not meet~~
~~WP:NCORP- lacks in-depth coverage in independent sources. MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:30, 21 August 2021 (UTC)~~[reply
]
Withdrawn by nominator. With only one delete !vote, there is little chance of this succeeding. And I'd prefer this didn't get dragged further into Stalwart111's crusade against HighKing. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:18, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:04, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:04, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:04, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In a very quick
WP:BEFORE exercise identified these sources but, while all the sources in the article/stub itself were primary, there would seem to be more than sufficient coverage elsewhere to demonstrate notability. Guliolopez (talk) 10:16, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:45, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Multiple reliable sources, per Guliolopez. Alan Islas (talk) 13:09, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Some sources likely derive from press releases, but not necessarily all. Plus, the articles are
WP:CORPDEPTH overall. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:21, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with
"Independent Content"
. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject.

I note that none of the Keep !voters have mentioned
WP:ORGIND
in their !votes. This is important as ORGIND rules out (for the purposes of establishing notability) anything that relies on company information or announcements or interviews, etc. None of the references meet the criteria. They are either repeating information on the website or short articles based on an "announcement" by the company and their published financial details - all of the articles I can find are within the company's echo chamber and I have been unable to find any "Independent Content" as per ORGIND.

While Northamerica1000 admits that some sources likely derive from press releases, none have been specifically identified as meeting CORPDEPTH *and* ORGIND as required. Topic fails
HighKing⁺⁺ 15:21, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - that some editors interpret
WP:NCORP does say about interviews it says in the section about secondary sources (further into the guideline) and it simply says that interviews are frequently encountered as primary sources. It doesn't say that they cannot also be encountered as secondary, independent sources but of course they can. St★lwart¹¹¹ 02:33, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note to closer This user is making their !vote in bad faith and has only made this !vote because they disagree with the interpretation of NCORP and are trying to
HighKing⁺⁺ 18:40, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Nope, it was in the AFD log and I contribute to AFD all the time. You should probably address your disruptive behaviour before trying to bludgeon more discussions. St★lwart¹¹¹ 05:57, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The history of your edits and personal attacks over the past two days will show the true picture.
HighKing⁺⁺ 13:27, 3 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 soft delete. Based on
"soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:49, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

M. William Karlins

M. William Karlins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Indications of notability, but I couldn't find evidence he meets
CAT:NN for 12 years; hopefully we can now resolve it. Boleyn (talk) 12:43, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
Smitty Werben 14:25, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
Smitty Werben 14:25, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
Smitty Werben 14:26, 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. – bradv^🍁 23:58, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Melikian-Ouzounian School

Melikian-Ouzounian School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
)

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

Possible
WP:GNG and elementary schools generally don't have standalone articles. Boleyn (talk) 12:33, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
Smitty Werben 14:28, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
Smitty Werben 14:28, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
Smitty Werben 14:28, 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. – bradv^🍁 00:10, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Wijohn

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

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

The claims to notability for this person are not credible enough to warrant having an article. Every election has many volunteers, he accepted an award on behalf of the movement - he is not the movement, he was part of a group of 120 Youth MPs - not every Youth MP has a page, he was part of a group that engaged in a parliamentary protest - not infrequent and the other 13 would have similar aggregate to warrant a page. Furthermore, he was not elected as a Green MP. None of this is credible enough. I note the contribution made by Sdrqaz, however I refer him to the fact that not every candidate - let alone a third-party general election candidate would otherwise warrant an article in a seat that he was very unlikely to win and in a relatively low list position. I also refer him to the WikiProject for New Zealand politics for the New MPs for the 2020 General Election - the candidates held likely to win that did not win have not had their articles published. It's clearly established that a general election candidacy in and of itself does not warrant a reasonable claim to significance. The wording used in that WikiProject is "This draft is only likely to be published as a Wikipedia article if the person wins the election." - it is clear on that basis that had the person in question won a seat in the election that they would be entitled to a reasonable claim of significance - however, they did not and thus do not have a reasonable claim to significance. IncredibleWalrus (talk) 11:47, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The nominator (who I will point out created their account solely to target the page of someone in the news today) points to various things that do not individually make someone notable. They do not address the idea that all of these things in combination could make someone notable. The subject of this article has a decent amount of coverage from reliable sources, both about him as part of a group and him individually. There are many school striker articles that honestly could be looked at for deletion, with less references and the strike being their only claim to fame. I do not believe this is one of them.--Pokelova (talk) 12:02, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I thank the creator of the article for their submission, however, I will note that Wikipedia does guide against using the news as a means of argument on this [23] and I would think it appropriate that this same courtesy was extended to the converse side of things. I also note that the creator of the article states that the aggregate of all of these things mentioned in my reason for nomination of which I made reference to in my nomination - that there are still similar people (Such as those listed in the same petition from Youth MPs sourced in the article) that attained the aggregate benchmark that he submits warrants a claim to significance, and they don't have their own articles because there isn't a reasonable claim of significance. I also ask whether asking "what about the others" is the wisest choice of words in this article for deletion considering the fact that we're not discussing those other articles. I do not see why whataboutism and news articles to undermine the existence of my account is remotely relevant to the course of this discussion and offers no substance whatsoever to supposing as to how the aggregate of his achievements makes him notable in any regard that meets Wikipedia's criteria? IncredibleWalrus (talk) 12:15, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I do not believe that what I said was whataboutism. I was not saying "these articles exist so this should exist, it was more like "I understand that some articles in this field maybe should not exist but this one should because I believe it meets GNG. --Pokelova (talk) 12:26, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
Talk to my owner:Online 12:08, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
Smitty Werben 14:30, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
Smitty Werben 14:30, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
Smitty Werben 14:31, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep, bad timing to nominate the article of someone currently in the news, and the nominator's brand new account is very up with Wikipedia terminology. I don't think this nomination is in good faith.-gadfium 18:50, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete: It's odd that speedy deletion was objected to - in my view it very clearly fails basic notability requirements. Political candidates are not entitled to Wikipedia pages and wiki is not a promotional page to give platforms to candidates, and unfortunately that seems to be the case for now as most of the references are simply about the article subject's political candidacy (to be clear though if elected as an MP in the future, then of course that would change things). The only other suggestion of why the page exists is they featured in some other news articles over a particular current event, however this very clearly fails to meet the threshold for an article as per
WP:BLP1E. People get mentioned in news articles all the time for various reasons and events, but that isn't a reason in itself for having a page and the guidelines very clearly set that out. In summary, as this doesn't follow notability requirements and wikipedia is not a news site or political candidate information place, deletion seems the only appropriate option. Greenleader(2) (talk) 01:00, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Tagging @Sdrqaz: if they wish to comment as the one who objected to the speedy deletion.--Pokelova (talk) 02:03, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with Gadfium – this appears to be a case of bad faith. But more to the point, there has been plenty enough in-depth coverage in reliable sources for GNG to be met. Schwede 66 07:59, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I share your concern that the nomination may have been in bad faith and it is troubling that the proposer's account was only active for a short time before proceeding with this. However for now, that is not what is up for us to discuss. Bad or good faith, when examining this page's case it seemed obvious to me that it doesn't meet the threshold for an article which is why I added my own perspective. It troubles me that 9 out of the 12 references relate to the political candidacy of the individual - extensive articles get done about candidates all the time, it doesn't entitle people to the creation of a wiki page and we should not conflate being a candidate with warranting a page or giving platforms to people for the sake of it. In my home UK constituency theres been many articles about one of our candidates by major news sources - it doesn't warrant a page though and never has unless they truly are known for something else external to just being a candidate. Their candidacy could be mentioned on the Mount Albert electorate page or something, but we don't give wiki pages to people just for being a candidate and generating some media interest for it. Secondly, the other references are rather brief mentions of being a Youth MP or relate to mentions of their activism, which isn't particularly notable and hasn't previously indicated notability nor is the person extensively focused on in these - so we cannot use those 3 references as indications of notability. As for one recent article I could find that mentions them, the headline notes their significance comes from being a party candidate "Covid 19 Delta outbreak: Police threaten to arrest ex-Greens candidate Luke Wijohn who films them making late night arrest." To me that suggests they aren't yet notable unless associated with their political candidacy and given almost all the references relate to that (9/12 and the other 3 are not remotely notable mentions) it would be inappropriate to maintain this page. I am seriously unconvinced this meets
WP:BLP1E if there is a particular event they're associated with. Greenleader(2) (talk) 09:54, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

I'm not aware of any bad faith in my own practices beyond that of which you and Gadfium have presupposed on me - of which I would otherwise be thankful for the fundamental principle of assuming good faith in these circumstances -
WP:AGF. Consider how it would be remotely possible for me to somehow defend a nomination because of a personal accusation made against me that I can't remotely engage in in a legitimate capacity. Furthermore you don't explain how GNG has been met beyond there being plenty of sources, I refer you to the submission by Greenleader where he addresses the ridiculous nature of supposing that an article is warranted based on the simple fact that "well the news discussed them a few times" - the news is irrelevant, as they pointed out and as I pointed out by citing Wikipedia's own principles in my nomination. Continuing, my nomination, which has been made with strict adherence to Wikipedia's principles, and reinforced with authority given by Wikipedia's principles, then I fail to understand why there is a legitimate argument to keep it beyond what you're doing which is to base a debate on it entirely on prejudice on this issue - I note that if AGF doesn't apply here by your own implication then we might take a look at your own conflicts of interest being intertwined with fellow Green Party MPs (notably no candidates listed, strange, don't you think?).IncredibleWalrus (talk) 10:00, 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 09:33, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of Video Game Data

List of Video Game Data (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Article doesn't have any
sandbox. – Rhain ☔ 11:58, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. – Rhain ☔ 11:58, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. – Rhain ☔ 11:58, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. – Rhain ☔ 11:58, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I can just remove the copies sold and notes colums and add the development time colum instead. That way i don't have to list every single video game.Timur9008 (talk) 15:16, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't fix the problem, nor does it remove the need to list every single game. This is just a list of random data, which is inappropriate for Wikipedia. – Rhain ☔ 12:36, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per
WP:NOT. Appears to be an effort to circumvent the LISTCRITERIA scoping of List of most expensive video games to develop. This is an indiscriminate collection of information that has 100,000s of potential entries. Additionally, there's no real way to meet LISTN for this as it's just a general "list of data". -- ferret (talk) 13:14, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Just by the title alone it violates
WP:NOTDATABASE, so there is not much more to say. The article's content backs up its title - an indiscriminate list of information with no context._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 14:22, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. This is just an arbitrary list of facts about video games. Fails
WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 14:32, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Completely indiscriminate with virtually no scope TarkusAB^talk/contrib 15:26, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't want to sound discouraging to the article creator, so may I suggest to them that they (if they find this type of data interesting) write about this within articles on individual games instead? "Video game data" does, as others have mentioned, mean an indiscriminate collection of information with no defined scope, and so is inappropriate as a concept for an encyclopedic list article.--Alexandra^IDV 16:48, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per
WP:LISTN. Not a lot of context to this list article and appears to have no real incusion criteria. Ajf773 (talk) 02:28, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

delete -
WP:NOT. There's also suitable overlap with other topics, and isn't defined. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:48, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete One of the stupidest examples of
WP:NOTSTATS I've seen. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 17:05, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

~~Possible merge~~ to video game development. A bullet list of the top known development budgets for games (perhaps when over a threshold) would be fair to give an example of costs. I just wouldn't break it down like this as a standalone. --Masem (t) 20:12, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Already exists at List of most expensive video games to develop. -- ferret (talk) 20:18, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Aha wasn't aware of that list. I'm going to expand a section in the development article to use that link, but that makes my !vote here a Delete. --Masem (t) 21:11, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per
WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Scope is extremely vague, while article capture just a tiny fraction of it. Parring it down to a manageable size would just end up making it redundant to various other lists about sales or budget. Not fixable or manageable. Sergecross73 msg me 16:04, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per above. This has to be the most disjointed article on the internet, no real connections, most of this list isn't even complete and the title not only doesn't make sense in regards to the contents of the article, but is really vague in general. I get the feeling this article was meant to prove something, but what that something is I have no clue. Captain Galaxy 19:43, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "Video Game Data" does not have a specific definition and it could include any video game related stuff. This list is vague, original research, personal analysis, and POV material. talk 03:24, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:05, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Emre Basalak

Emre Basalak (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 actor, fails
WP:GNG. Creator removed deletion tag. DMySon (talk) 11:46, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 11:46, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 11:46, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 11:46, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have now added the interwiki link to the Turkish article, which lists quite some sources. However, these are repeating what the person says himself or are "Kimdir?" sources which do not contribute to notability (see my explanation
~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 18:03, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Probably delete. Rarely does one encounter an article which so clearly announces the non-notability of its subject: "There isn't much known about Emre Basalak, but everything that is known about Emre Basalak's career is..." (that he has played two not very significant roles). My own searches have actually thrown up significantly more evidence of significance than the article suggests, but it has largely been in sources of little value, such as fan sites, IMDb, mere announcements of his playing particular roles, and so on. My impression is that he does not satisfy the notability guidelines, but I'm reluctant to definitely commit to delete because I haven't searched thoroughly enough for possible Turkish sources. JBW (talk) 21:19, 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 merge to
Donda (album). – bradv^🍁 23:56, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Donda stem player

Donda stem player (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
)

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

Subordinate to the
WP:SBST (the event being the announcement of the stem player). Throast (talk | contribs) 11:13, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Throast (talk | contribs) 11:24, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Throast (talk | contribs) 11:30, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by creator: While I assumed absolute good faith while writing this article and considered to have even named it Stem player because it integrates Stem (audio), I would take an indifferent/neutral stance on if the article should be deleted or not. One thing I may ask, if the article is deemed not to standalone, rather than delete, kindly make a redirect of the article to where you deem best. Respect. Danidamiobi (talk) 11:23, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: belongs in a subsection of Donda's article when it releases. Kettleonwater (talk) 15:24, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the content into
Donda (album) and then redirect the page. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 12:17, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete All the necessary information regarding the player is already in the main
Donda (album) page. ‒overthrows 19:07, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge i say merge to main donda page -pyraminxsolver Pyraminxsolver (talk) 23:40, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per
the relevant subsection. The music player is notable enough on its own for it to exist outside of the album article (as proposed by others above). Sean Stephens (talk) 05:11, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

You did not address
WP:TOOSOON. Throast (talk | contribs) 08:30, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
You're right, it's too soon—too soon to nominate this article for deletion. Articles shouldn't be created and then immediately be nominated for deletion; see
WP:SUSTAINED may not be able to be addressed at this stage, as something that's only existed for a minimal period of time can't be expected to have a large variety of sources available for use, hence why this AFD was created too soon. It's absolutely ludicrous. ~~Would it hurt to act in good faith?~~ I suggest draftification as the best outcome here. Sean Stephens (talk) 07:25, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
A deletion discussion does not need to result in deletion. Merging and redirecting is a perfectly acceptable outcome, which editors are proposing. The article could then be turned back into a standalone article at a later point, when coverage of the subject proves to be sustained. Per WP:RAPID, it is recommended to delay the nomination for a few days. It's been five days since the burst of coverage regarding the announcement of the player and no significant coverage has occurred since. There is no argument for "Keep" at this stage. Side note, please don't assume bad faith. Throast (talk | contribs) 09:45, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Throast: I am aware that there are multiple outcomes of these discussions. Hopefully whichever one occurs is satisfactory for the majority. I do understand your point, but I don't necessarily agree with it. I might have a go at expanding it if I get the time. I want to apologise for assuming bad faith; I was having a bad day and wrote it in the heat of the moment. I'm sorry for having said it, and I've struck that comment above. Sean Stephens (talk) 16:16, 3 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. Daniel (talk) 09:32, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Toyin Anthony Amuzu (TA)

Toyin Anthony Amuzu (TA) (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 BLP of a subject who does not pass
WP:NPOL or have in depth coverage in multiple reliable independent sources. Mccapra (talk) 10:22, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 10:22, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 10:22, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Subject does not meet either
WP:NPOL. Princess of Ara 11:48, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete — I can’t see NPOL met. A google search shows nothing cogent, a BASIC argument cannot even be made. Celestina007 (talk) 13:47, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is written much more like a résumé than a proper encyclopedia article, says nothing about him that would get him over
WP:GNG as the "references" are not coverage about him, but pieces quoting and/or written by him as statements of his opinions on things — which is not the kind of sourcing that makes a person notable. Bearcat (talk) 00:09, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Doesn't meet
WP:NPOL. Apart from that, the article is basically a puff piece written with no pretense to a neutral point of view. PohranicniStraze (talk) 03:45, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete fails
WP:NPOL.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:34, 3 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. – bradv^🍁 23:52, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vrisá (brand)

Vrisá (brand) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

a non notable clothing brand fails
WP:NCORP. JeepersClub (talk) 09:44, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. JeepersClub (talk) 09:44, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. JeepersClub (talk) 09:44, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly fails
WP:NCORP. Edwardx (talk) 17:43, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Not sure how it looks failing
WP:GNG. Fekkup (talk) 19:07, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:47, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it is very difficult to distinguish promotional coverage in this are from NPOV. Essentially all fashion magazines exists primarily for promotional coverage. Since for such coverage it is impossible to distinguish what really deserves coverage and what doesn't really, but is in there only at hte instigation of their pressagent, this makes it very difficult oo handle this area. Given the choie between not covering something that turns out to be notable , and encouraging promotionalism , small gaps in coverage don't harm WP, permitting anything like advertising can kill it. DGG ( talk ) 10:43, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The conclusion of whether the topic should be kept or not is made in above comment on the subjective inconclusiveness faced when analyzing the nature of the references. The brand has too many references in Vogue, which is one of the authorities in the fashion domain. It's very hard to believe that the brand isn't notable when such references are available. This argument is being made while not even considering the other acceptable, reputed references. Secondly, I could not agree with the opinion that "Essentially all fashion magazines exists primarily for promotional coverage", which is far from the truth in my opinion. It is impossible for a non-notable brand to get featured in an internationally authoritative magazine consistently over time. Other references speak for themselves. Circling back to the first argument, any obscured subjetive inability to judge the quality or nature of the reference can't be the reason for concluding a topic as non-notable. Fekkup (talk) 21:59, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fekkup, rather than try to wade through your long list above, why not just give us your three best sources? Edwardx (talk) 16:00, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nominator of this AfD JeepersClub is a blocked sock. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 15:47, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, Qwaiiplayer. We should nonetheless continue to consider whether or not to keep Vrisá on its own merits, or lack of them. Edwardx (talk) 15:56, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, There're a lot of references in addition to which are present in the article currently. The nomination seems to be done in haste as it lacked
WP:NCORP. Di xiku 22:17, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete All of the vogue references are brief mentions in listicles with titles such as 'Vogue India picks 55 of the best looks from Lakmé Fashion Week'. There are
WP:CORPDEPTH - without some substantially better sourcing, this is an NCORP fail. Girth Summit _(blether) 15:13, 4 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 soft delete. Based on
"soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 09:32, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Yuanfan Yang

Yuanfan Yang (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:MUSICBIO. Most likely COI: major contributors User:Jing1271 and User:Jingwang1271 have contributed to this article only. For years, all the content was copied from the artist's website
, which I have now removed.
The only significant coverage I've found is this article on Newsweek. There are several more mentions in passing, mostly related to competitions. Per
WP:MUSICBIO though, he has not won a major competition. intforce (talk) 00:35, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. intforce (talk) 00:35, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. intforce (talk) 00:35, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. intforce (talk) 00:35, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I have added some of the subject's competitive appearances and a bylined review of his album. As the subject is an early career musician, still appearing in competitions (e.g. the delayed XVIII
WP:MUSICBIO criteria 8 or 9. AllyD (talk) 07:47, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:21, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 09:05, 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 merge to Denbighshire County Council. Daniel (talk) 09:32, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Democratic Alliance of Wales

Democratic Alliance of Wales (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
)

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

Organisation fails our ORG and GNG guidelines. Wikipedia is not a Gazetteer of political parties and should not be used to host pencil sketches of political parties just because they exist, but rather because of what they have achieved outside merely being formed to fight elections, which is where I believe this article falls down. No evidence of importance, notability, or achievement outside those expected for a political party. doktorb _words^deeds 06:05, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. doktorb _words^deeds 06:05, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. doktorb _words^deeds 06:05, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 07:04, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete/merge When they existed only in one small county, it's probably better to mention in the history of Denbighshire County Council than independently notable. Reywas92^Talk 14:20, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, a bit of a harsh nomination, the party achieved getting a number of its members elected to office, which is more than many small political parties manage. If we were to deleted all articles about political parties because they hadn't achieved anything "outside those expected for a political party" we wouldn't have many (or any) articles left! But, having been active 20 years ago, the reasons for it being created and its manifesto being no longer easily available, its relatively short lived existence, I wouldn't lose sleep if it was merged/mentioned in the Denbighshire County Council article. Sionk (talk) 10:40, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 09:04, 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. Daniel (talk) 09:31, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

People Against Bureaucracy

People Against Bureaucracy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Organisation fails our ORG and GNG guidelines. Wikipedia is not a Gazetteer of political parties and should not be used to host pencil sketches of political parties just because they exist, but rather because of what they have achieved outside merely being formed to fight elections, which is where I believe this article falls down. No evidence of importance, notability, or achievement outside those expected for a political party. doktorb _words^deeds 06:07, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. doktorb _words^deeds 06:07, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 06:59, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 06:59, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete – Fails WP:NOTABILITY RoanokeVirginia (talk) 21:24, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 09:03, 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. Daniel (talk) 09:31, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Bharatiya Jain Sanghatana

Bharatiya Jain Sanghatana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Thee seem to be insufficient substantial 3rd party reliable published sources, not press releases or blogs or postings or mere notices See also Draft:Shantilal Muttha and Draft:Shantilal Muttha Foundation , which seem part of the same PR campaign. DGG ( talk ) 05:57, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 08:38, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 08:39, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 09:03, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 09:02, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete While the current sourcing is insufficient to establish notability per
WP:NORG, there could be non-English or offline sources. I'd be happy to change my vote if other sources are presented. -- Ab207 (talk) 15:24, 3 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 no consensus due to lack of participation. Daniel (talk) 09:30, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Brad Cleveland

Brad Cleveland (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 sure about notability. ~~A quick Google search shows plenty of~~
~~self-published sources (the subject's website, Twitter, LinkedIn...) rather than third party sources.~~ –FlyingAce^✈hello 17:20, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Third party sources now added to the article. –FlyingAce^✈hello 21:10, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. –FlyingAce^✈hello 17:20, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. –FlyingAce^✈hello 17:20, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how I go about this, but I did update the page in visual mode and lost the sources that have been present since 2011. I have reverted back to an older version without today's changes. I will try to edit the article and retain/improve the sources. Thank you. (Msblair74 (talk) 19:10, 6 August 2021 (UTC))[reply]

Self-trout – I should have checked the history as well. The article still needs clean up, though – for instance, the Amazon link should be removed from the body of the article. –FlyingAce^✈hello 21:08, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Msblair74: I have to ask, though, do you have any relation to the subject of the article? If so, please take a look at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, particularly the section on how to disclose a COI. –FlyingAce^✈hello 21:19, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm unsure on notability as well. I don't see sources that show notability per
WP:ACADEMIC? (It's the one notability guideline I don't have a good grasp on.) If not, I'm thinking this should be deleted unless other sources can be found. - Whisperjanes (talk) 17:09, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:21, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 20:51, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 08:57, 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 (of a weaker variety, verging on no consensus). Daniel (talk) 09:30, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mostafa Keshvari

Mostafa Keshvari (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 came across this article which is about canadian-iranian film maker and screenwriter, I did some research and from what I saw, the claims in this articles are not true, sources are poor or unrelated, I tried speedy deletion but it seems we have to discuss about it, subject of the article doesn't pass GNG and I think it should be deleted Mardetanha (talk) 21:32, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:46, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:47, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:47, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Many references from reliable sources, including this one from The New York Times. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:49, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is about the movie Corona (film) which already has a WP article not the director himself, just a very brief mention of the director itself, I am fine with redirecting this article to the movie but director is yet far from GNG Mardetanha (talk) 09:35, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think there's enough coverage to meet
WP:GNG
.

TheGuardian - Coronavirus: the movie is somehow already here – but are we ready for it?

BBC - It's thought to be the first film about the disease. Its Canadian director, Mostafa Keshvari, talked to the BBC's Tom Brook.

The Jakarta Post - A first film on the coronavirus epidemic has been shot

The Hollywood Reporter - Canadian Thriller ‘Corona’ Touted as First COVID-19 Movie

etc...

ZEP55 (talk) 10:18, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note that these sources are not about the subject, but instead their products, while the product might be notable (it is totally unrelated issue) the producer, owner are not notable Mardetanha (talk) 11:34, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep So many easily found sources, to establish GNG. This is a
WP:BEFORE failure, and if there's issues in the article, it should be fixed, not deleted. Nfitz (talk) 19:19, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 08:56, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Alongside with other sources, I found following source ([31]) which is an interview with the subject in Persian language; An interview with Mostafa Keshvari; a Vancouver-based filmmaker. Subject clearly meets notability guideline as a filmmaker.Mahdiar86 (talk) 21:29, 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.

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

The result was no consensus. Daniel (talk) 09:29, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cloud Tectonics

Cloud Tectonics (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 couldn't establish that this meets
WP:ATD is merge/redirect to José Rivera (playwright). Boleyn (talk) 11:30, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment I found these articles mentioning the play (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) but I'm unsure if they verify notability. –
DarkGlow • 11:35, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:46, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:46, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. Maybe someone could write an encyclopedic article about this play someday, as it has had brief regional and off-Broadway productions, but the current article does not contain any referenced content that it would be a shame to lose. If any of the key facts are missing from Rivera's article, they could be merged into it, but nothing useful would be lost by deleting this article as it stands. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:35, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:31, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:00, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sources shared above establish notability (including one from the New York Times, a major publication). I've added two sources to the article.
talk) 19:39, 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 merge to David Pritchard (chess player). Daniel (talk) 09:29, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

British Chess Variants Society

British Chess Variants Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
)

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

I have major concerns this organization fails
WP:NOTYELLOWPAGES (or catalogue of NGOs)." I guess it's time to discuss it at a wider forum (AfD). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:14, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:14, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:14, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Slimy asparagus (talk) 07:55, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into ~~Chess variant~~David Pritchard (chess player) I think there is enough information for at least a section heading somewhere and that is the logical place. Or maybe David Pritchard (chess player). That page would also work and actually seems a bit sure on references so could do with the input from a merge. Slimy asparagus (talk) 08:00, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to David Pritchard (chess player). Not enough independent coverage to warrant its own article, but there's already a paragraph about the society on David Pritchard's page that could potentially be expanded. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 14:36, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to David Pritchard (chess player) per above. Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:01, 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 redirect to Unaussprechlichen Kulten. Daniel (talk) 09:28, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Golden Goblin Press

Golden Goblin Press (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
)

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

Fictional entity. I prodded this with "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing
WP:ATD I can think of is to redirect this to Unaussprechlichen Kulten, the only Wikipedia article that mentions this entity. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:03, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:03, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:03, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:03, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Plausible/non-confusing redirect, even if niche, but no reason for it to be a standalone article outside the one presumably notable fictional work fictionally published by this fictional corporation. Jclemens (talk) 06:15, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Unaussprechlichen Kulten. I don't think anything needs to be merged. It appears to be a pretty small ~~plot point~~ element in a single story of a huge mythos. -2pou (talk) 15:56, 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 keep since there is already state-level polling being done for this election. RL0919 (talk) 06:16, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2024 United States presidential election in Missouri

2024 United States presidential election in Missouri (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:CRYSTAL. There's not much at this time specifically about this election in Missouri (not surprised, as it's not a swing state anymore). Should be recreated closer to the election time, once more about the election specifically in this state rather than in general is known. Hog Farm _Talk 04:08, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 04:08, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 04:08, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep @Hog Farm: I've been changing these from redirects to articles as we get polling in each state. This keeps an excessive amount of polls off of the main 2024 United States presidential election. If there was no polling here, I would not have expanded this from a redirect. I don't see this as a violation of any policy - the election obviously will happen, and we do have useful information we can share with our readers about it. Elli (talk | contribs) 04:15, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Two comments: First, I think it's telling that the 2020 page was created in early 2019, and the 2016 one was created in 2016. Really, the best way to handle this is going to just drop off the oldest polls off this early. Right now this contains two polls, one of which was done a month before Biden's inauguration. These polls this early aren't going to be useful, so we'll just wind up with a page filled with obsolete polls for several years. A better option would probably be to create Statewide opinion polling for the 2024 United States presidential election a la Statewide opinion polling for the 2020 United States presidential election and house everything in the poll-dedicated page there. I don't think this is useful, as there will be very little data on this election in Missouri until way closer. Hog Farm _Talk 04:24, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I just don't see a benefit to deleting this? There will be more polling at some point - after all, there already is some polling - and the current article serves a useful function for organization and to readers. I hate to cite pageviews as those are usually a bad argument in deletion discussions, but this has ~400 in the past month. Clearly, some people want information, and we can give them some information. I've seen pages get updated pretty rapidly when new polling is released, if you're worried about the page being filled only with stale polling. Elli (talk | contribs) 04:37, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep @Hog Farm: There is both a primary and general election poll for this election which gives it some substantive content. This election will inevitably take place so keeping this article means that we will not have to recreate it in the future. Thomascampbell123 (talk | contribs) 05:23, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per above Nitesh003 (TALK) 03:36, 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 03:26, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2020 Trinidad protests

2020 Trinidad protests (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:NOTNEWS. These events don't appear to have garnered any international attention, and only three sources, all apparently local, can only be provided. I don't see the notability behind this besides the timing with the George Floyd protests. Love of Corey (talk) 03:05, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment there is a fair amount of coverage of these protests in media outlets especially Caribbean ones - remember
WP:TOOSOON. Based on this I would lean towards delete. Vladimir.copic (talk) 04:54, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
Smitty Werben 07:57, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
Smitty Werben 07:58, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
Smitty Werben 07:58, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
Smitty Werben 07:58, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

By "local" do you mean national? There's no requirement that any subject receive international attention (?). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:32, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I meant local. Love of Corey (talk) 02:15, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ZERO mentions in Gnews. Some random mentions on local websites. Delete. Oaktree b (talk) 03:38, 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:25, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tri-City, San Diego County, California

Tri-City, San Diego County, California (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 has been up for years and remains unsourced after all this time. And as a San Diegan, I have to say that I've never, EVER heard the term "Tri-City" be used before in association with Oceanside, Vista, and Carlsbad being lumped together. Love of Corey (talk) 02:35, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
Smitty Werben 07:56, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. I found zero references to this on Google, in a news search, and in books, although there were a couple random things like the Tri-City Medical Center (which "has served San Diego County’s coastal communities of Carlsbad, Oceanside and Vista, as well as the surrounding region for nearly 60 years"), Tri-City Movers (who "specialize in residential moving everywhere in the San Diego area"), and the Tri-City Podiatry Group (which "has San Diego covered with exceptional care at every turn"). None of these are really reliable sources, and none of them really demonstrate that it's a place. "Tri-city" is used to refer to lots of business located equidistant to three cities (like Tri-City Mental Health serving Claremont, La Verne and Pomona, or Tri-City National Bank serving greater Milwaukee). This doesn't mean that those specific cities are "the tri-city" for that area. jp×g 19:09, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per JPxG. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:29, 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 02:19, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gee and haw

Gee and haw (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 01:03, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
Smitty Werben 07:56, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom, wiktionary has it covered --Cornellier (talk) 15:39, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.
talk page 16:03, 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. ✗plicit 02:20, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

School Master (1964 film)

School Master (1964 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) 16:29, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.--Filmomusico (talk) 16:29, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment One of a large set of similar AfDs on Indian films by this nominator, none of which were transcluded to a daily log. Fixing now--I am neutral on the nominations themselves. --Finngall ^talk 16:51, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:10, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see quite a few sources online. Adding sources now. Not a justified nomination. Shahid • ^Talk2me 09:10, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@
reliable.--Filmomusico (talk) 21:11, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Filmomusico, right, but WP:BEFORE was not met in contrast to what you wrote while submitting this nomination. Shahid • ^Talk2me 21:52, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:25, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Expanded with sources. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:51, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Kailash29792: I added one too. Withdrawing my nomination.--Filmomusico (talk) 05:16, 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 speedy delete. Created by a blocked user in violation of block Firsfron of Ronchester 19:05, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Glen Cove, Vallejo, California

Glen Cove, Vallejo, California (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Overly detailed article on a non-notable neighborhood created by a blocked sock. A merge to Vallejo, California would be undue. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 00:10, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 00:10, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a notable neighborhood. Strong promotional tone.
SPEAK 01:19, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete "where bald eagles roam"? Sorry was it a piece of literature? Doesn't appear to be encyclopedic content. Fails notability criteria. Chirota (talk) 02:44, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:49, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Just an ordinary suburban neighborhood, non-notable. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:29, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non notable neighborhood. Looks like someone Googled it and added a bunch of news results. –dlthewave ☎ 20:30, 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:18, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Greenspond Historical Society

Greenspond Historical Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

A non-notable local group that fails the WP:GNG. There are no reliable sources included in the article, and searching for sources turned up no coverage on the group. Article was originally created by a WP:SPA with a clear WP:COI. I initially PRODed this, but I had not noticed that had already been done in the past, so I had to bring it to AFD. Rorshacma (talk) 14:18, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Newfoundland and Labrador-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:39, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:39, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:39, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge very briefly to Greenspond. Local history societies are rarely notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:33, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PROD
, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:06, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails
Avilich (talk) 01:18, 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:17, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Destin (actor)

Jordan Destin (actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Does not meet criteria of
WP:NACTOR. He has appeared in bit parts in a lot of shows but nothing substantive. The sources provided are press releases and promotional materials. I cannot find substantial discussion of the individual in multiple reliable sources. ... discospinster _talk 14:22, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 14:22, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 14:22, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:26, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails minimum criteria. The subject is not meeting
WP:NACTOR. Bapinghosh (talk) 17:32, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

WP:PROD
, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:06, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails NACTOR.-
KH-1 (talk) 12:34, 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. Daniel (talk) 09:28, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

MC Xander

MC Xander (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 • 14:18, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
DarkGlow • 14:18, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
DarkGlow • 14:18, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
DarkGlow • 14:18, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
DarkGlow • 14:18, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:05, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Only two albums with a gap of eight years, that too under no major record labels. Fails
WP:MUSICBIO miserably. Chirota (talk) 02:41, 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. ✗plicit 03:27, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Gublins (TV series)

The Gublins (TV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

No coverage from reliable sources; does not appear to meet
DarkGlow • 14:51, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
DarkGlow • 14:51, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
DarkGlow • 14:51, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment The Gublins did exist: there are obituaries for its creator that mention him eg the Guardian, the standard and The Herald. There is an example on Youtube here. Books were published such as here. I'm just very surprised that there isn't more give how cherished Gordon Murray (puppeteer)'s other creations like Trumpton are. It feels like there must be reliable sources for this somewhere. But I can't find them. OsFish (talk) 16:28, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep & Improve I think this piece should remain and not be deleted, but more citations are definitely needed. I can't seem to find many sources anywhere though but as @OsFish said, they must exist somewhere.

LukeWWF (talk) 12:12, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:59, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:03, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This subject doesn't seem to have significant coverage anywhere, and
Avilich (talk) 01:25, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

I'm crossing out my comment in light of the expansion by
Avilich (talk) 15:01, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep I've added sources and expanded details on the series. I kept stumbling upon sources using various search configurations. There is also, I believe, material in at least one book ("Into the Box of Delights: The History of Children's Television") by Anna Home but I can't access it. It's never going to be a huge article, but I think there is already enough here so far. OsFish (talk) 14:40, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Addtional Comment I think it may be helpful to go over what
WP:RSN.) OsFish (talk) 06:05, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - There is less online coverage of this than I would perhaps expect, which I think explains some of the concerns, but it is clear that this was a significant TV series and the expanded article suggests to me that notability criteria have been met. Dunarc (talk) 20:37, 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. ✗plicit 02:16, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Esther Okade

Esther Okade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

By and large this is a
WP:BLP1E, just as it was when Power (now 力
) PROD'd it in 2019. The third reference, from The Nation, is identical to the CNN coverage from 2015 and indeed notes that it is "Culled from CNN.com", so it can be disregarded. The other two references are basically human-interest fluff, both from around the same time in 2015, and the Telegraph one is bylined to "Agency" - is it a press release?
There has been no new coverage of her since; every additional "article" I found on crappy blogazines was just repetition of the same information, sometimes with her age updated. For example, this 2019 article from the Nigerian Guardian is mostly info and large quotes from the 2015 CNN article, with zero new information, and in fact presents the story like it just happened despite the 4-year time gap.
Conclusion: two fluffy human-interest stories with zero new coverage are not sufficient to justify retaining a BLP article about a child whose life is otherwise a private matter. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:00, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:00, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:00, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:00, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:00, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and the BLP1E issue mentioned in my previous PROD; there's still nothing here. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 01:40, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — @
WP:TOOSOON. I wish her all the best life has to offer and someday when she meets GNG an article on her would be retained on mainspace. Celestina007 (talk) 20:57, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

If you move extremely quickly, you can copy/paste the article into a word processor before the paywall notice actually pops up. That's what I did :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:09, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Premeditated Chaos, oh my! that worked. Celestina007 (talk) 23:13, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom
WP:1E.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:35, 3 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.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2021_August_28&oldid=1042432022"

[1] ISSN 0021-9371
. The words turncoat and renegado, with the latter also implying apostasy, were in considerable use by the early seventeenth century, and both carried deeply negative connotations. The former was employed in John Foxe's Acts and Monuments by 1570 and on the stage in Thomas Middleton's Game at Chess by 1624. The civil wars made these terms more widespread, and defectors among the English gentry clearly did not wish to be associated with them.

[2] :10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199575855.001.0001. Alongside 'Roundhead rogue' and 'popish Cavalier' stood 'turncoat'—a term in use since the 1560s but increasingly employed during the civil wars. From usage at Oxford and Westminster, it penetrated into everyday conversations in provincial villages and towns. Henry Cholmley, constable of Tunstall in Yorkshire's North Riding, stood accused of berating his neighbours as 'turncoats, saying they were not worthy to come into honest men's company.' {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help
)

[1]

[2]