Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 July 19

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< July 18	July 20 >

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 merge to Video games in Iran. Daniel (talk) 01:27, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Donya ye Bazi

)

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

Wikipedia:Notability (media). IamMM (talk) 16:22, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:58, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:30, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:11, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:48, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the newly created
significant coverage. No prejudice against reconsideration with a more rigorous Persian source evaluation. czar 03:40, 23 July 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) 01:31, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Arre... Devaa

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

Non-notable film, lacking significant coverage per

WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 17:17, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:29, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:29, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:47, 19 July 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. Agree with PMC that due to the lack of articulated rationale, soft delete is not the most comfortable of options. Having received no comments in two weeks, this is a procedural close that does not preclude a renomination in the immediate future (ideally with a stronger nomination rationale). Daniel (talk) 01:26, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shirzanan

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

Wikipedia:Notability (media). IamMM (talk) 16:33, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:01, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:01, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I am not comfortable closing this as soft delete with the extremely bare rationale for deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:23, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:45, 19 July 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. Agree with PMC that due to the lack of articulated rationale, soft delete is not the most comfortable of options. Having received no comments in two weeks, this is a procedural close that does not preclude a renomination in the immediate future (ideally with a stronger nomination rationale). Daniel (talk) 01:26, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gozaresh (magazine)

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

Wikipedia:Notability (media). IamMM (talk) 16:35, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:06, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I am not comfortable closing this as soft delete with the extremely bare rationale for deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:23, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:44, 19 July 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. Agree with PMC that due to the lack of articulated rationale, soft delete is not the most comfortable of options. Having received no comments in two weeks, this is a procedural close that does not preclude a renomination in the immediate future (ideally with a stronger nomination rationale). Daniel (talk) 01:26, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shabakeh

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

Wikipedia:Notability (media). IamMM (talk) 16:35, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:00, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I am not comfortable closing this as soft delete with the extremely bare rationale for deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:23, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:44, 19 July 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) 01:24, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Dancehall Macarena

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

The song does not appear to have been the subject of significant coverage so passes neither

WP:GNG. The song has not charted nationally anywhere, it has not received a major award and it has not been performed by multiple notable musicians. In fact, the artist associated with this song doesn't even appear to be notable so redirect isn't even an option nor is merge. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:49, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:49, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Jamaica-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:49, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:49, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails
WP:NSONG per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 06:24, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:41, 19 July 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 low participation and a lack of a conclusive outcome. Not willing to soft-delete due to generic nomination statement. Per L, no prejudice against imminent renomination if desired. Daniel (talk) 23:01, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nafeh

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

Wikipedia:Notability (media). IamMM (talk) 16:38, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:05, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:32, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This strikes me as exactly the sort of subject for which sources probably
WP:NEXIST, but locating them poses more of a research challenge. Twenty-three years is a solid length of time for a literary magazine to survive, and suggests a likelihood of historic significance. The linked "Mehr News Agency" source really makes me feel like there is more here-- per google translate, it is a 2007 article discussing the budget and distribution history of the magazine in depth. Searching "مجله نافه", the name of the magazine in Farsi, I get a lot of hits which might be good sources. I don't see proof yet that the magazine is notable, but I am hesitant to write it off. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 10:00, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:55, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:40, 19 July 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. MBisanz ^talk 23:53, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ascend International School

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

Non-notable private school. Fails

WP:ORG. Essentially no coverage. PepperBeast (talk) 23:36, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:53, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:52, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:52, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've added sources, with some that pass WP:GNG. Because this is a non-profit private school, WP:ORG (which says, The scope of this guideline covers all groups of people organized together for a purpose with the exception of non-profit educational institutions, religions or sects, and sports teams) is not required, but
WP:NSCHOOL) Three sources that meet GNG requirements are from Uniform Application, Newsweek, and Education World. Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 22:23, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:40, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Since all of the sources are either extremely trivial, primary, or otherwise not of usable quality. Except maybe the Newsweek article, but it's a school top list that only talks about the school in 2 paragraphs that aren't really that useful. That said, I think someone could just as easily argue for a weak keep. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:33, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the Newsweek item has the heading "Sponsor Insight", ie, it's a piece of paid "journalism" and as such, doesn't establish notability. PepperBeast (talk) 11:39, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Fair enough, Pepperbeast, I had missed the heading "Sponsor Insight", so that's a good catch. I've returned to adding content and identifying articles with independent, reliable, significant coverage.

Under

WP:SIGCOV

, Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. I believe 3 articles clearly pass that bar:

Three additional articles give "more than a trivial mention" but Ascend International School is not the main topic of the source material:

Graduate School of Library and Information Science, iSchool at Illinois has a focus on a young librarian planning the new school's collection, with information about the school's plans for gradual addition of grade levels.
The Indian Express reports an investigation into the grant of a "concessional" land deal with Kasegaon Education Society (KES), the foundation sponsoring the school.
Mumbai Mirror describes the admissions process for schools with IB curriculum, citing the school as an example of "schools that can’t afford to be cocksure" in competition with more established IB schools.

Cheers! Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 03:41, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment UniformApp also appears to be paid content. PepperBeast (talk) 14:25, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Thanks, I just found "Simplify and grow your admissions" on the UniformApp website, so I struck it from the list above. There are still two solid sources and 3 additional sources that are more than "passing mentions", qualifying under
WP:SIGCOV. Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 20:41, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Weak Keep I can see few articles that talks about the school. And above comment by Grand'mere Eugene. DMySon (talk) 13:11, 25 July 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) 22:59, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bikini Round-Up

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

Non-notable erotic film, lacking significant coverage per

WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 22:20, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:35, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 01:02, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not even close to meeting the inclusion criteria for films.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:28, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Fred Olen Ray is a cult filmmaker with around 50 or 60 films listed in Wikipedia. Here is a link to his film template. No need to single out this title for deletion. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 18:40, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- This is an argument about the notability of the filmmaker, but this particular film was not addressed. What is making this film notable? Where is the independent coverage of this film? BOVINEBOY2008 20:11, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The very fact that the director of this film has a Wikipedia template and over 50 of his films have Wikipedia articles makes the film notable by definition for a Wikipedia entry. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 00:16, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please review

WP:GNG. BOVINEBOY2008 00:21, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

- Comment,
  WP:NFILM, I am afraid that your Keep comment will be ignored by any admin closing this discussion as you have not addressed the concerns of the notability of this film adequately. DonaldD23 talk to me 22:04, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Delete Fails
WP:NFILM DonaldD23 talk to me 22:04, 21 July 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) 22:58, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rupert Law, 9th Baron Ellenborough

)

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

Baroncruft. A low-ranking officer with an unremarkable business career, no evidence of any notability. We don't have articles about French, Italian, Russian, German or Spanish people simply for having inherited the (relatively low-ranking) title of "baron" or being "sons of barons" (sic!). Tataral (talk) 22:13, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:37, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:37, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

comment not an expert, but does this level of peerage convey membership of the House of Lords? If not then I have no problem with the motion that it is not inherently notable. Artw (talk) 00:05, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- He's not and has never been a member of the house of lords (or any other political body).[1] --Tataral (talk) 00:36, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - As of the House of Lords Act 1999 those with newly inherited hereditary peerages are no longer entitle to sit in the House of Lords. Vladimir.copic (talk) 01:52, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete peerages may be inherited but notability is not. Neither his title nor family make him inherently notable as per
WP:BIOFAMILY. No coverage of Law himself anywhere that I can find. Vladimir.copic (talk) 02:09, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Strong Keep The aristocracy of the United Kingdom is of inherent interest to a great many people in the United Kingdom and globally. A simple review of the number of articles on the British Nobility on Wikipedia will confirm the same.

In the interests of full disclosure, I can confirm I am the creator of the article.

This particular article is important as it brings the Ellenborough Baronecy up to the present day and allows readers to consider the passage of the title from its origins to today with suitable ancillary biographical information provided for context. Further, aspects of the aristocracy are under review in the UK - e.g. the whether or not male primogeniture should be permitted - see ^[1] and being able to see who the present peers are will be of benefit to those for and against the motion.

I now address the points made above in turn:

Tataral states "a low ranking officer", "unremarkable business career" and "no evidence of notability" and also argues no Russian, German or Spanish nobility have articles "simply for having inherited the title of "baron".

Taking the last point first, no Russian, German or Spanish are entitled to be elected to the House of Lords (or their equivalents). They do not hold subsisting Royal patents and are therefore almost all symbolic. Not so, in the United Kingdom. The present Lord Ellenborough has "proved" his title to the satisfaction of the College of Arms - see ^[2].

The present Lord Ellenborough is also capable of standing for election to the House of Lords - see ^[3]^[4] Vladimir.copic is incorrect on this point.

As to the comments as to the present Lord Ellenborough's career, as above, the details are included as ancillary context to the incumbent peer's position and it will be of interest to many accordingly. I note the page has been viewed 144 times since I created it.

The inclusion of this biography draws upon the information from Debrett's Peerage and Baronetage - itself one of the oldest forms of biographical dictionary in the world. It also forms part/completes the Baron Ellenborough stub.

I note Tataral is by her own omission on her Talk sometimes described as "an extreme leftist who will stop at nothing to to deny those who disagree with them political power". This being the case she is unlikely to have any interest in the British Aristocracy. Please refer to "When to not use deletion process" and specifically "some topics are of interest to some people, but since Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, articles that interest some people should be kept."

I would welcome suggestions to improve the article but I feel strongly that it should not be deleted. I invite other Wikipedians to comment. Looking glass 563621 (talk) 22:37, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

None of your comments address the notability of the subject. The article does not demonstrate him to be notable. Your personal attack on me is completely irrelevant, and your quote about me supposedly being an "extreme leftist" is taken completely out of context, from a comment where I explained my centrist position, in the context of years-long debates and struggles with pro-Trump editors in Trump administration related articles. Those are the ones prone to view a European centrist and liberal as an "extreme leftist". Also, I believe the consensus on this project is that being technically "capable of standing for election" doesn't make someone notable. You have to either be elected or at least be viewed by reliable sources as a leading/credible contender. I'm capable of standing for election to many political offices in France. --Tataral (talk) 12:01, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This in no way demonstrates the page’s notability or gives sources to demonstrate notability. Please see

WP:POLITICIAN as being an unelected candidate for political office does not confer notability. I stand by my point that Law is not entitle to sit in the House of Lords. If being “capable of standing for election” to the House of Lords is the same as being entitled to a parliamentary seat then I suppose I am entitled to a seat in the House of Commons seeing as I am capable of standing for election ^[5]. There are plenty of Wikipedia pages detailing peerages in the United Kingdom and British nobility so it is difficult to claim this page is required for these reasons. The subsequent history of the Ellenborough Baronacy is given on the Baron Ellenborough page for any who are interested if this page is deleted. Vladimir.copic (talk) 13:53, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

As I understand it, there are around a thousand people who have inherited noble titles but who haven't been appointed or elected to the House of Lords. Occasionally there is an "election" whereby someone with a title inherited from an ancestor (as opposed to having any accomplishments of their own) may be "elected" to the House of Lords. It seems to me that this "election" to a body with very little real influence is pretty much a non-event as far as RS are concerned. I've never seen any coverage of such "elections", I've never seen the elections themselves treated as very important, in the way that elections to the House of Commons are. It would seem reasonable to only treat those who are in fact elected as notable in this case. Had the election in itself been considered important in RS, then perhaps the two or three leading contenders would also have been notable by virtue of their participation in the election. But treating a thousand obscure people who aren't even mentioned in connection with the elecion as notable merely due to having a title such as baron and hypothetically being able to stand for election would be absurd, and yet another example of the ridiculous emphasis on fancruft on minor British aristocrats on this project (for comparison, there is currently an ongoing discussion over possibly deleting a prince, the son of the former Greek king, while we have a thousand articles about British "sons of barons"). --Tataral (talk) 15:30, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tataral - my commentary on your political leanings was not a personal attack; I was quoting from your talk page! However, your analysis (and Copic’s) as to what is “notable” is profoundly subjective. As such your motive is relevant. The commentary that the article is “ yet another example of the ridiculous emphasis on fancruft on minor British aristocrats on this project” is unnecessary and a seemingly xenophobic - and further suggests political cancelling g at work. The argument is also self-defeating as you concede “ we have a thousand articles about British "sons of barons”… indicating they are still profoundly interesting. My central point is that the subject is notable and the article IS of interest to SOME, if not to you. I know this as an Englishman. The article is well-referenced from an encyclopaedia which predates Wikipedia by 100s of years. Why should it be deleted? I also note you have submitted a lot of articles for deletion. As to the commentary about no coverage of Heriditary peerage elections - that is patently false in the Uk. See for example the commentary in the National Press this month about Tony Ben’s son taking his seat in the Lords. Looking glass 563621 (talk) 22:53, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Looking glass 563621: at the end of a week someone we call a closing administrator will have a look at all the arguments presented here and try to draw a conclusion from them. In doing so it is usual practice that the opinions of ,those with a heavy conflict of interest, such as yourself as a direct relative of the subject, will be heavily discounted. Which is to say: you have made your point, but I would not waste too much additional time on this arguing this discussion. --- Possibly ☎ 05:45, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

not a directory and anyone interested in a list of barons has access to this in other places.Vladimir.copic (talk) 00:12, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Note Looking glass 563621 - you need to sign your comments. I have added your signature onto your previous comments. You do this by adding four tildes at the end of your comment. Vladimir.copic (talk) 23:46, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
CONFLICT OF INTEREST Unfortunately I believe that
WP:CONFLICT with this article's subject and I will be going through the relevant processes to report this. It might be advisable to revisit the many other edits the user has made on this subject. Vladimir.copic (talk
)

Comment It is accepted consensus that peerages inherited after the enactment of the House of Lords act 1999 do not automatically confer notability. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:32, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see nothing noteworthy here, other than the fact he inherited a peerage. Looking glass 563621 has declared that they are a relative of the subject ("This article is about my great, great-grandfather", they say, about Cecil Law, 6th Baron Ellenborough), so their !vote and arguments should be taken with . --- Possibly ☎ 01:47, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Aristocrats are not inherently notable, and the mere fact that their names and/or bio are mentioned in nobility-specific publications is not enough to establish notability. JBchrch talk 08:34, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes, I disclosed that conflict of interest when I started writing the Law family pages in the interests of transparency. However, I simply don't think I am conflicted as all my edits have been referenced and draw upon third party sources of information which are independently verifiable. In my view, those sources justify both content and notability (as well-researched English biographical histories). I can honestly say I have not sought to mislead but to chronicle an area of interest to me (and others) for public benefit (and thank you Possibly for acknowledging my work has not been terrible editing). I apologise to Vladimir.copic and Tataral if they feel I have shown "quite extreme WP:BIAS" in defending this article and the people that I know are interested in it - however, I simply don't feel it as obscure as you paint it. And I don't understand the benefit of deletion to WP - for all the reasons I have given above -it is also so negative (along with the current trend of cancel culture) and it is discouraging. If I am to be banned from further editing it will be a disappointment as I am still learning and have spent much time doing so. I will wait to hear from the Administrator in any event.Looking glass 563621 (talk) 08:42, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment P.s. if anyone could actually help me I would be very grateful! Looking glass 563621 (talk) 08:45, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Piecesofuk ‎ CrumbleCrumble HandsomeFella Dl2000 Surtsicna Mr Hall of England AvalerionV Racklever Adding some former contributors to this article for reference.

References

Strong Delete Complete puff piece article for a person who I'm struggling to determine why he is notable. scope_creep^Talk 09:45, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly not notable based on WP:GNG, so, unless there's a provision I don't know about that says being a Baron makes you automatically notable, he fails. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 17:36, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly fail
WP:NPOL. He is a titular baron, never sit in the House of Lord. VocalIndia (talk) 14:32, 24 July 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. Daniel (talk) 22:58, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

South Dakota Commission on Gaming

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

No sign of notability as it's stated in the following guidelines WP:ORGDEPTH, WP:VERIFYOR. Not enough significant coverage to meet WP:GNG. Bash7oven (talk) 15:58, 12 July 2021 (UTC) — Bash7oven (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep It's easy to find more coverage such as Legalized Casino Gaming in the United States – The Economic and Social Impact. Our policy
WP:NEXIST. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:45, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. About thirty states have one of these review boards (commissions/agencies) charged with oversight of gambling in the state in question. According to this template, Wikipedia has started articles on about half of them. I like the idea of having a full set. There are ways to improve this article such as adding information about the size of SD's gambling economy, controversies about members of the commission or their actions, and actions they take that get them in the news. For example, they apparently just set forth a series of rules on sports betting which got a lot of coverage. Novellasyes (talk) 20:46, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:56, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Dakota-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:56, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:38, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not so much publish sources, but also was attracted to
WP:ORG. Vsehmogushiy2 (talk) 13:25, 21 July 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) 14:56, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Bench (2007 film)

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

Non-notable student film, lacking significant coverage per

WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 21:26, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 13:12, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:42, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:42, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails
WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 22:05, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. Sufficient coverage to ensure film's notability. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 18:44, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you please show where the coverage is? All we have in the article is the official website (not independent) and a film festival website which currently does not work so I can't verify if there is coverage there or not. BOVINEBOY2008 20:15, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails GNG/NFILM. Nothing notable found. Kolma8 (talk) 04:58, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - barely even meets
WP:NFILM, failed to even find local coverage Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:31, 24 July 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) 14:56, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Adventurous Brothers

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

Non-notable upcoming web series, does not meet

WP:GNG BOVINEBOY2008 21:17, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:43, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've researched the series on YouTube and this appears to be a low-budget video series promoted by its creator on Wikipedia. The "preview" for the series has the Vyond free trial watermark and has 2 views. This article may even qualify for

promotional article. Also, it says that the website for the reference is The Futon Critic, and that at the cited page there is an episode listing, however it just links to the creator's Instagram account. WaddlesJP13 (talk | contributions) 23:22, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete - Non-notable YouTube series, with no reliable sources mentioning it. I would be fine with a Speedy Delete as well, if others agree that this looks to be fully promotional. Rorshacma (talk) 23:56, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pretend Vyond show from two minor kids. chatter) 01:19, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. The pilot has 6 views and the station has 62 subscribers. There is also a Vyond free trial watermark throughout the episode. A significant portion of the viewership is AfD participants. No indication anyone else has picked up on this show. Pikavoom (talk) 06:00, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No indepth sources available. fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 03:13, 23 July 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) 14:55, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Japan problem

Japan problem (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 looks like a dummy disambiguation page, listing all sorts of things that might considered ‘problems in Japan’, but nothing to support the idea that any of them is called the ‘Japan problem”. Mccapra (talk) 21:16, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 21:16, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: (procedural) Don't need dummy disambiguation pages. --Whiteguru (talk) 22:08, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not disambiguate anything with this name. Did not find anything that is consistently called the "Japan problem", not even the Japanese Problem. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 22:51, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 22:58, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not really a necessary page per the reasons stated above in the nomination and comments. WaddlesJP13 (talk | contributions) 23:04, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomRatnahastin(t.c) 11:47, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a proper disambiguation page.
talk page 12:07, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete It is not plausible that anybody would search Wikipedia for "Japan problem" in order to find any of these articles, because they're not referred to as the "Japan problem". As such, it's not a proper disambiguation page. TompaDompa (talk) 14:53, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Absolutely zero reliable sources that demonstrate notability. TheDreamBoat (talk) 03:24, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's a disambiguation page, which do not require sources. WaddlesJP13 (talk | contributions) 03:32, 23 July 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) 22:58, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Vedran Brkic

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

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

Barely any coverage even in a Serbian search. Mentioned in passing on his club's website and Rugby Ozone but little anywhere else. Fails
WP:NRU. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:52, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:53, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:53, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:53, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom, fails
WP:NRU as no professional appearances. May have played internationally but that would also be non-notable. Not seeing anything in a GNG search to suggest a pass there either. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:24, 20 July 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) 22:58, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Bawyrym

Bawyrym (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, lacking significant coverage per
WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 20:39, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:47, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kazakhstan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:47, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unable to find any significant coverage or reviews in English, Russian or Kazakh so NFILM is likely failed here Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:12, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please also note that this article was deleted on Kazakh Wikipedia and Russian Wikipedia although, of course, their notability criteria might well be different to ours. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:14, 26 July 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. MBisanz ^talk 23:54, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bhagya Chakra (2005 film)

Bhagya Chakra (2005 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, lacking significant coverage per
WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 20:23, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:28, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:28, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Major mainstream film with top name stars, most of whom have Wikipedia entries. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 18:47, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not inherited by the people involved. Where is the significant coverage of this film? BOVINEBOY2008 20:17, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The very fact of participation by major stars makes this film notable. Our purpose would be to find and add media mentions of it, rather than delete its Wikipedia entry. The deletion would be of help to no one. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 23:45, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Again, notability is not inherited. I have done a search for sources for this film and have found nothing significant from reliable sources. We should not keep an article about a topic just because it might be notable because someone notable was attached. BOVINEBOY2008 23:48, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Unless there is contention that a film in question does not exist, Wikipedians who see Wikipedia as a compendium of all films are likely to accept a film with major stars as notable by that very fact alone. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 00:10, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The bar for film to have a Wikipedia article is not set at "does it exist?" Per
WP:NINI. Just because some one notable is attached does not guarantee that it should have an article. BOVINEBOY2008 00:18, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment,
WP:NFILM, I am afraid that your Keep comment will be ignored by any admin closing this discussion as you have not addressed the concerns of the notability of this film adequately. DonaldD23 talk to me 22:02, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Fails
WP:NFILM DonaldD23 talk to me 22:02, 21 July 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) 14:55, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tioti Maati Toafa

Tioti Maati Toafa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Futsal appearances are not covered by
WP:GNG. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:00, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:00, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:00, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:01, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:01, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:02, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 20:51, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom, I'm pretty certain he fails
WP:NRU as I don't think any of his Sevens appearances would be notable due to Tuvalu's low standing in Sevens. It seems his football career (which seems more predominant) is also non-notable. Not seeing anything in a GNG search either. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:23, 20 July 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) 22:57, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Konstantinos Kritsikis

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

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

The previous blanking seems to have been an attempt to get the article deleted. To be honest, I don't think this rugby player is notable. I added one source to basically save this from being a BLP PROD but it's from an unreliable blog and, therefore, unacceptable.
WP:NRU
does not mention Greece so I can only presume that they are not a High Performance Union and so his alleged caps for Greece do not make him inherently notable.
In terms of
WP:GNG, I found absolutely no reliable sources on him, even when searching in Greek. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:53, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:54, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:54, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:54, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom, fails
WP:NRU as Greece international appearances are non-notable and no other professional appearances. In terms of GNG I'm not seeing anything to suggest a GNG pass either. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:21, 20 July 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) 14:55, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Niels Gotfredsen

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

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

DePROD due to playing for Denmark but Denmark is not a High Performance Union so he is not notable on that alone; see
WP:GNG in any case and I can't see any evidence of that at all. I have run Google searches of his name and found a passing mention on the Danish association page, this simply confirms that he was in the squad for an XV game. A Danish source search only seems to come up with articles on other people of the same name. The one reference provided does prove that he exists but it doesn't show any significant coverage addressing him in depth. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:40, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:41, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:41, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:41, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom, fails
WP:NRU as international appearances not notable and no other professional appearances either. Not seeing anything in a search to suggest a GNG pass either. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:17, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete, rugby in Denmark and many other European countries is simply not notable. Geschichte (talk) 09:28, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Geschichte (talk) 07:53, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Incidents (magazine)

Incidents (magazine) (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:Notability (media). IamMM (talk) 16:20, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:59, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:10, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. I've found two sources discussing the magazine and its banning by the Iranian government, such as the
Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani's presidency. This is giving me a good sign, but other sources I've found in my searches use the word Havades for different things, not to discuss this magazine. If I lived in a Middle Eastern country (which I don't want to), more sources would probably come up about this topic, but I live in the US. 👨x🐱 (talk) 21:20, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:47, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per 👨x🐱. The very fact that this publication fell victim to Iranian regime's censorship is sufficient to establish its notability. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 19:11, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources and arguments above Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:54, 22 July 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 verging to weakly kept. Daniel (talk) 22:57, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alejandra Ceja

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

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

Could not find sufficient sources that were actually reliable, secondary and in-depth enough to meet
WP:BASIC, and I don't believe her governmental position was of a type of provide assumed notability. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:17, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:17, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:17, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sources provided are mostly primary and not that helpful. But searches of books and news quickly turned up two good sources, [2] and [3]. All we consider at AFD is notability, not article content. Notability requires multiple reliable independent sources, which I find to be satisfied. Msnicki (talk) 15:41, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The first source looks good, if it's independent enough, however the second, once you've factored out a quote by her, doesn't really cover her in significant depth. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:03, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:09, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:47, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Msnicki. Daughter of Mexican immigrant parents who rose to a high post in the U.S. Government is immediately notable by definition. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 19:16, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Roman Spinner: How? What guideline ascribes "notable by definition" to a non-cabinet/minister level post because of parentage? Currently there's no policy cited Nosebagbear (talk) 20:06, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Nosebagbear: My reading of the five inline cites under Alejandra Ceja#References confirms notability sufficient for a Wikipedia entry. However, as we all know very well, Wikipedia is consensus-based and, of course, if sufficient number of Wikipedians feel otherwise, then my stance will not prevail. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 20:24, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Roman, all of those sources are worse than the two given by Msnicki, which I cover above Nosebagbear (talk):

CHCI exists to try and promote the next generation of latino leaders, so obviously is neither secondary, reliable, nor independent

Newark Trust has her as a Board member, so again is neither secondary, reliable, or independent

NIU is a university blog post, and is functionally either a quote or a video from her, so again, neither secondary, nor independent, nor meeting SigCov

The US Department of Education is a related organisation, and certainly neither secondary nor independent

PLEN, again is rather like the CHCI, with the two supporting each other, so not independent, and presumably not secondary

Keep - I'm convinced by the sources provided by Msnicki above. The book reference is fairly circular and clearly niche in scope (with a niche audience) but it looks to be published by a reputable publisher and edited (as such guides usually are, as opposed to authored) by a well-regarded journalist. The article is coverage of her, and coverage of her opinion. I see no reason to "factor out" the quotation within the article; explaining the subject's opinions by quoting the subject is normal journalistic practice. St★lwart¹¹¹ 09:30, 23 July 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) 14:55, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gout (album)

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

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

This appears to be a
WP:SIGCOV. Also, it's notable that the author of this article shares a last name with someone on the album credits, so there may be an undisclosed COI. Niftysquirrel (talk) 17:50, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:57, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This article is actually about a hoax, so the best way to assess the situation is to see WP's rule for articles about hoaxes at
WP:NHOAX. According to the various sources in the article, the jazzbo community seems to have decided that someone recorded this album in the 2000s and put it online, claiming that it was a lost classic from 1974 as some sort of elaborate practical joke. That got some minor coverage in the jazz press, but to qualify for an article here the hoax needs to have received reliable coverage in its own right, like the Piltdown Man hoax. I don't believe this hoax qualifies because it was only discussed at minor jazz publications and esoteric discussion boards. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:17, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete — Per the spot on very pedantically rationale by Doomsdayer520. Celestina007 (talk) 20:43, 21 July 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
WP:ATD. Daniel (talk) 22:56, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Behzad Warrior Academy

Behzad Warrior Academy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
)

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

an advertisement of a non notable gym fails
WP:GNG. GermanKity (talk) 16:58, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 16:58, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 16:58, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 16:58, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – I can find no
WP:NCORP. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:20, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep – The Behzad Warrior Academy is located in the center of Bangkok and covers notable athletes. The owner of this academy is also one of the prominent champion of Muay Thai. The news and references prove it. This article was written with the aim of increasing the level of Wikipedia sports. Please help maintain it. Sincerely MMA Kid (talk) 04:34, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Zero in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources. None of the references in the article, several of which are redundant duplicates, are actually about the subject. --Paul_012 (talk) 04:54, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to
WP:GNG. Recreation in the future (when sources exist to establish notability) is always an option. St★lwart¹¹¹ 09:34, 23 July 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 Shiv Sena. Phil is correct, this must go via talk pages in future. Daniel (talk) 22:55, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shiv Sena National Executive

Shiv Sena National Executive (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 am not intend to delete this article but this must be redirected to Shiv Sena. GermanKity (talk) 16:55, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 16:55, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 16:55, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 16:55, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Shiv Sena is the proper identity. --Whiteguru (talk) 21:57, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this at
Phil Bridger (talk) 20:12, 20 July 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) 14:54, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Isha Malviya

Isha Malviya (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 under
WP:NACTOR. GermanKity (talk) 16:29, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 16:29, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 16:29, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 16:29, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 16:29, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the only references are two wikis which are just PR websites with the exact same information likely because they come from the subject herself. Fails
WP:NACTOR. Notfrompedro (talk) 14:18, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete non-notable person. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 16:41, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not a notable person, last source was a junk scraper site (removed), feels like
WP:COI editing happening here Ravensfire (talk) 21:10, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete: Doesn't meet notability criteria. Non notable person. TheDreamBoat (talk) 03:44, 23 July 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. Daniel (talk) 01:24, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Corina Apostol

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

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

For one, the sourcing is deeply uninspiring:

Awards pages: [4], [5]

Employer/affiliate blurbs: [6], [7], [8]

Book sale page: [9]

”About” page for a platform the subject helped start: [10], [11]

University press releases: [12], [13]

Interview — one of three subjects interviewed — regarding an exhibit they prepared: [14]

Except perhaps for the last, which has no quotable biographical material, essentially nothing here is independent; practically everything is expressly linked to the subject.
For another, nothing the subject has done really suggests notability, as defined by
WP:ARTIST. Merely being nominated for some awards isn’t generally a signifier of notability. Neither is getting a PhD and doing routine things with that, like managing a gallery, creating an exhibit, editing a book, etc. Sure, it’s a nice career, but nothing out of the ordinary. — Biruitorul ^Talk 18:39, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:10, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:10, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there are a few decently-sized mentions in Google Books. At the moment it is true that the sourcing is largely primary. I would lean to retain this though, since the Venice Biennale gig is extremely prestigious. --- Possibly ☎ 19:16, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The artistic director for the entire Biennale is probably notable. The curator for a national pavilion, one of a couple dozen? I’m more skeptical. — Biruitorul ^Talk 20:02, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the
WP:SECONDARY sourcing I have been able to find about this particular pavillion, i.e. Norman, Razavi and Saal to represent Estonia at 59th Venice Biennale (ERR, 2020), “People are not sure if they are putting me in danger when writing about my work.” (Blok, 2020), and what the CCA ("Estonian Pavilion at the Venice Biennale is the most extensive and significant international art project for Estonia, produced by CCA since 1999"), and Apostol have said (Blok, 2020), there appears to be notability for her work in this context. Beccaynr (talk) 19:51, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

It is highly, highly prestigious to be the curator chosen to curate a country's contribution to the Venice Biennale. Imagine you get a call saying "hey, we know there are dozens of other people we could have called, but we would like You to curate this major show representing your country." It's a big deal in the art world, and a big deal for anyone to be selected as a country-level representative. --- Possibly ☎ 22:55, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Contrary to what the nominator said, 'merely being nominated for some awards' may be a signifier of notability. Criterion 1 of
WP:ANYBIO says: [t]he person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times. Even though she has not won any of them, three nominations to such awards are in the article and can be verified. Of course, not everyone who's been nominated for notable awards is automatically notable; but, as Possibly has pointed out, the subject has done more than just the nominations. Modussiccandi (talk) 20:33, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
1) I’m skeptical about the Prince Pierre de Monaco Prize nomination claim, for the simple reason that, per the official site, the award was not granted in 2015, despite what the blurb asserts.

2) I’m also not convinced that the Kuryokhin Art Award is particularly significant, given the lack of credible evidence to back that up.

3) Thus, being one of six nominees — not even a finalist — for a Kandinsky Prize is a rather slender notability claim. Also, she received just one nomination apiece, thus not fulfilling the “nominated for such an award several times” requirement.

4) As for the claim that “the subject has done more than just the nominations”: where exactly are the “multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject” to demonstrate that? — Biruitorul ^Talk 03:43, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per
WP:ANYBIO # 1, unless it is established that these nominations are not real. JBchrch talk 10:00, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
As I noted in my previous reply: there is good reason to believe the Monaco nomination didn’t happen; there is also good reason to cast doubt on the importance of the Kuryokhin award; and finally, even the most generous interpretation of the criterion runs up against its clear wording: “nominated for such an award several times”. At most, the subject received one nomination for each award, thus not fulfilling the requirement. — Biruitorul ^Talk 13:49, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
May I add that this is your reading of the criterion? The text simply says "such an award" not "the same award". The text is phrased ambiguously and both readings are possible. To me, this is one of the reasons why AfD works on consensus in order to gauge how different editors view these criteria. Modussiccandi (talk) 14:47, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
While we probe the fine points of definitions, let’s note that “several” is defined as “more than two but fewer than many”. We have two clearly established nominations (of which one may not qualify as a “well-known and significant award”), so even by your more generous interpretation, the subject still does not pass
WP:ANYBIO, point 1. — Biruitorul ^Talk 16:47, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
There are, in fact, several definitions, including "more than one." pburka (talk) 17:12, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
“Several” typically refers to around 3-5. As the Merriam-Webster style guide makes clear, the word can conceivably mean “two”, but in modern English commonly means “three or more”.

At any rate, looking at the bigger picture, “lost out on two awards, one of which isn’t even attested as being ‘well-known and significant’”, isn’t exactly convincing evidence of notability. — Biruitorul ^Talk 23:49, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Ok so do we have any reliable source for the Prince Pierre de Monaco Prize? I have tried to locate one but did not find any that was independent from the subject, including on the website of the Fondation Price Pierre de Monaco. JBchrch talk 19:22, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The short answer would appear to be no. Given that it’s the most authoritative source on the topic, I too checked the official site for the Monaco prize, reviewing all nominees as far back as 2008, the earliest available date. Apostol isn’t there. - Biruitorul ^Talk 04:34, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The website does not seem to show any nominees for the prize she may have been nominated for, i.e. The Prize for a critical essay on contemporary art, so the short answer appears to be it remains unclear based on the information available from the website. Beccaynr (talk) 19:28, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But this means that this information is not verifiable right? JBchrch talk 19:46, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The nomination currently does not appear to be verified, but this is not because all of the nominee information is available to be reviewed on the official website, and Apostol is not listed. None of the nominees are listed for the award she may have been nominated for, so we are not able to use the website to verify whether she was nominated. Beccaynr (talk) 20:01, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion begs a second question: what (impartial) indication do we have that the “Fondation Prince Pierre de Monaco Prize for a critical essay on contemporary art” counts as a “well-known and significant award or honor”, as contemplated by
WP:ANYBIO? — Biruitorul ^Talk 21:50, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
No independent source validates the Monaco prize, and it is not listed on their website. I have removed it from the article. --- Possibly ☎ 23:06, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, at minimum per
WP:ANYBIO notability is not fully supported at this time, her being not just nominated but also shortlisted for this award appears to support her notability when combined with other sources, including the GBooks references noted by Possibly above. Beccaynr (talk) 22:43, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep, per the additional arguments provided above. --- Possibly ☎ 22:58, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Beccaynr (talk) 23:16, 22 July 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) 22:53, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Becoming Royston

Becoming Royston (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, lacking significant coverage per
WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 15:30, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:18, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:18, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't think that the claimed nominations at
WP:GNG pass either. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:21, 26 July 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) 22:52, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Utatane (P2P)

Utatane (P2P) (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
WP:NSOFT. The overhelming majority of article content is unsourced. Article reads promotional and lacks in-depth third-party coverage. Anton.bersh (talk) 14:17, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Anton.bersh (talk) 14:17, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Anton.bersh (talk) 14:17, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Anton.bersh (talk) 14:17, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Anton.bersh (talk) 14:17, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks the multiple reliable independent secondary sources required to establish notability. Searches turned up nothing useful. It's described as a "Windows OpenNap client" but the
WP:PROD a few days ago. Msnicki (talk) 15:32, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:38, 19 July 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 Altaria (band). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:54, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Petri Aho

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

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

Long term tagged for notability. Has a single source that is to a primary source about the band he is in. Does not demonstrate any notability as an individual. Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 14:37, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:39, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:39, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect ~~Delete~~. I've found nothing really useful source-wise. There's the very brief Encyclopaedia Metallum entry, but in general, everything can find mentions him just in passing. Very happy to change this stance if there are sources I haven't found, e.g. in print. /Julle (talk) 14:58, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Altaria (band). It appears that he has done nothing notable outside that band, and this article does little more than announce his existence. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:08, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Redirect to Altaria (band) as per rationale by User:doomsdayer520 and User:Julle --Kevin19781 (talk) 18:00, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above account has been ruled a sockpuppet. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 21:11, 24 July 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 14:29, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sonali Pandit Naik

Sonali Pandit Naik (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. A declined draft already exists. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 13:54, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 13:54, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 13:54, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 13:54, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom.DMySon (talk) 15:56, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unreferenced article does not pass notability.GermanKity (talk) 16:39, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:11, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:11, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources given in article to suggest notability. Govvy (talk) 12:32, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Absolutely zero reliable sources that demonstrate notability. TheDreamBoat (talk) 03:57, 23 July 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 on
reliabilty issues due to the way it has been compiled, the standards for verifiability have not been met. This is an absolute requirement, and one that has not been adequately answered by the "keep" side. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:14, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Buttock Batu

Buttock Batu (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 indication of notability. I couldn't really find any further information about this place. PepperBeast (talk) 20:28, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's a village and so passes
WP:GEOLAND. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:12, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

What makes you say it's a village? –dlthewave ☎ 22:16, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment do you have some
WP:RS that indicates it's a village? PepperBeast (talk) 02:28, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:20, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:39, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- for want of reliable sources describing exactly what the nature of this location is. All we have is a name and a location, and that's just a statistical entry not an encyclopedia article. I've done some searching for sources for this article, including under different possible spellings of the name, and all I can find are WP mirrors and shady online travel agencies offering hotels in a geographically nearby city. Without anything substantial this is a no-go. Reyk _YO! 05:20, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per
WP:GEOLAND. A real existing settlement, nothing gained by destroying the article. FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:09, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - Sourcing is insufficient to establish notability. I would challenge the assertion that this meets
WP:GEOLAND, since that guideline "specifically excludes maps, tables, lists, databases, etc., from consideration when establishing topic notability" and the only current references are a list and a database. –dlthewave ☎ 12:42, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

The guideline also states "On the other hand, sources that describe the subject instead of simply mentioning it do establish notability. " The
BGN source does this. Let's not get caught in excessive piety for words - the BGN source may have 'List' in its title, but it's actually a book length reference. While you're argument is valid, we're not forced to class it as a list for WP:GEO purposes. Also Buttock Batu is covered in other English sources such as imperial documentation. Though I'm not going to link to those as per deColonization, I'm not sure that 100% of Malaysians would find it non offensive. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:45, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment the BGN source from the 40s calls it a village and describes its locatiion ([a]n interior village on the Sungei Segama west - northwest of Lahad Datu). It doesn't describe the village at all. The up-to-date BGN database only calls it a "populated place", and I can't find anything else to positively state that it's even that. Malaysia Geoportal doesn't mention it. PepperBeast (talk) 19:06, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, though it would also be valid to read the 40's BGN source as describing the settlement as a village, though I concede it's a brief description even if we count the location data. Anyway, if you want verification of the settlement's continued existence, it's on various sites like malaysiaplaces.net, or you can even see it yourself via the 2021 photos on this Google earth link. I'd not expect it to be on Malaysia Geoportal, with a few exceptions that seems to be more mainland Malaysia, missing even several famous towns & cities from East Malaysia, which is about a thousand miles away from the mainland. (Just in case you didn't know and feel bad, I was also unaware of this until a couple of years ago. Had an issue escalated to me at work where a client needed a face to face in Labuan. I was like "Just send Sabir bro." (Sabir being our man in Kuala Lumpur, and I knew he could spare a whole day for the mission.) They were like "Errr Feyd, I hope you know Labuan is like a 4 day round trip from KL." So embarrassing, we ended up sending someone from Aus. Fortunately, the good Colonel (Andrew D) has an expert knowledge of east Asia, so we can be guided by his opinion on the matter. So I remain of the opinion we should keep the article. If you wanted another reason beyond the policy based case, there's the fact that various GIS sites have feeds from Wikipedia, which might be broken if we delete the article. These things can be very valuable to tourists or botanists etc doing research in the area. FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:18, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly a recognised settlement, so passes
WP:GEOLAND. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:19, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

delete Actually looking at GMaps, what's clearly there is nothing but a large spread of palm forest. Either that, or the coordinates are inaccurate, because a half-mile to the south, there is something that might be construed as a "settlement", but it is quite peculiar looking and to my eye doesn't look anything like a village that's been there since the 1940s. It could just as well be a coconut plantation with dorms for the workers built pretty recently.

Geonames has the same sort of reliability problems as GNIS does, and I suspect it's for the same reason: the latter was largely an exercise in map-reading and interpretation, and on top of that they pulled in stuff from even more problematic sources. Here the maps are not as good as US topos, and indeed, I couldn't find any maps of this area which I could determine to independent of Geonames/WP data, except for GMaps's aerials. Having banged my head on this stuff for years now (e.g., a long run of Somali villages) I'd just as soon preemptively delete all the "X is a spot on a map" entries like this, to be recreated if and when someone comes up with some substantive content. In any case this fails verification and notability. Mangoe (talk) 12:58, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, dudhhr_Contribs 06:37, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, the coordinates are only degree/minute precision which could easily be off by 1/2 mile. Apparently it's common practice for editors to manually adjust these to the nearest thing that shows up on the satellite view, which hasn't been done here yet. I would say those buildings to the south are probably the place we're talking about, but like you said, we can't confirm that it's actually a village. –dlthewave ☎ 22:04, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question. Is it possible that this is a misspelling of Butok Batu, a real village in Indonesia (but not one that Google Maps can find)? Butok is a much more Malay-looking spelling than Buttock. Athel cb (talk) 09:39, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a bad question, but it doesn't produce a satisfactory answer-- there is a Batu Butok, but it's in a completely different location, in East Kalimintan. PepperBeast (talk) 13:05, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
When I was looking for sources I found a "Batak Batu", also in Indonesia. Definitely not the possibly nonexistent place in Malaysia. I think Mangoe's detective work makes this questionable under
WP:V, and I don't think even the ludicrously lax standards of GEOLAND extend to nonexistent locations. Reyk _YO! 11:43, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:52, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

The result was soft delete. Based on
"soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:36, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Astrothrill

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

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

Non-notable short film, lacking significant coverage per
WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 13:25, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:26, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:32, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:48, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:16, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ActivityWatch

ActivityWatch (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 The Banner talk 13:16, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. The Banner talk 13:16, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Previously submitted at
reliable sources). A S U K I T E 14:11, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as per nom and above comments. GermanKity (talk) 16:33, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no independent sources in the article, and I can't find any to add. -
MrOllie (talk) 15:39, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. The app is still in beta, even after so many years. It may one day become notable, but currently it is not. Dr.KBAHT (talk) 20:15, 20 July 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
(non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 13:00, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Bullfrogs and Butterflies

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

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

Series doesn’t need its own page since only like two albums are actually notable. Could be merged into the artist page. Dronebogus (talk) 12:59, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:12, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Candle (band). Note that one of the individual albums is currently in its own AfD discussion. This particular article on a series of albums is untenable because the series has received no reliable media coverage as an entity in its own right. In fact, a group of albums with similar titles is not a series that deserves its own coverage. The individual albums within the group can stand or fall on their own. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:05, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to
WP:NALBUM per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 01:30, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was keep. Geschichte (talk) 07:51, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oded Stark

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

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

The subject (Oded Stark) would like his entry removed altogether. Sweterkowiec (talk) 12:52, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:10, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:10, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:10, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The subject is clearly notable. This is not a borderline case. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:10, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not borderline. h-index of 54 passes NPROF#1.
Humboldt Prize award and distinguished professor tick additional NPROF boxes.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 13:14, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. per Eastmain and Eostrix. but major overhaul /
WP:TNT is required. --hroest 14:32, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. It is perhaps relevant to note that the nominator claims to be working for Stark and recently made large promotional edits to Stark's article, stating that they were at Stark's direct request, that were removed and suppressed as a copyvio. This appears to be a case of "if I can't directly write the article about me then it shouldn't exist". That's not how Wikipedia works. However, as hroest has noted, the promotional pattern of editing means that both cleanup and continued attention are likely needed. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:12, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passing multiple criteria of
talk) 17:01, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep for reasons above but cut Research section down by 75%. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:40, 19 July 2021 (UTC).[reply]

I just cut it down significantly.
talk) 23:43, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep: meets
WP:AUTHOR based on the multiple scholarly reviews of his books. TJMSmith (talk) 02:23, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 02:23, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep clearly notable [15] Ratnahastin(t.c) 12:01, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 21:43, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

George B. Walden

George B. Walden (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 had labeled this as PROD earlier in the week when I had just begun engaging in the deletion process, and it was deprodded yesterday without reason. As such, I am submitting this for AfD which in hindsight might have been a better option given there was more than one source on the article. Nevertheless, this article appears to fail
WP:BIO
.

Argument for Non-notability

Conducting a google search reveals little information beyond what is already on the wikipage, which appears to be accurate. He was head chemist at Eli Lilly in the 1920's and participated in research in insulin. However, there were many scientists involved in its research and he does not appear to be a major player within this. I was not able to find major news coverage during his time or in historical coverage of the era. However, searching for old information is more difficult and I am less experienced on that front, and as such would appreciate others giving a go at looking into this as well.
Essentially, he does receive passing mention regarding his activities as a scientist, is published in some journal articles on the early 20th century and did have some impact, but it does not appear to be significant enough to be considered notable.
Thanks! --Tautomers_{(T C)} 01:10, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's difficult to assess Walden's claim, because Web of Science provides no useful information. However, as a company scientist he was probably unable to publish his observations in the way an academic scientist would have done. A letter available at https://insulin.library.utoronto.ca/islandora/object/insulin%3AL10253 suggests that his contribution was just part of a broader effort at the University of Toronto. I haven't found anything else beyond what is claimed in the Wikipedia article. If the authors of the article can provide better evidence, then OK, but otherwise delete. Athel cb (talk) 07:56, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:02, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:02, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:02, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Walden was head chemist at Eli Lilly and so was a person of some importance. He has entries in numerous reference works including American Men of Science; Famous Faces in Diabetes; Indiana Scientists: A Biographical Directory; Who's Who in America; Who's Who in Commerce and Industry; &c. That's therefore an easy pass of
WP:ATD
therefore applies, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page."

Note also that neither the creator of the page in question nor any other contributor has been notified about either the prod or this AfD. Tsk.

Andrew🐉(talk) 23:55, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have since informed the article creator on the AfD as I have forgotten to do so, my appologies for that. On one hand I appreciate you pointing this out as I have failed to do this for numerous AfD's for a few days now. Still adjusting to the process. I don't agree with the keep assessment, but it is also a fair assessment and others can take it into consideration when they look into this. All that being said, I can't help but read this as anything other than petty (particularly because of the tsk), per a discussion here, and would appreciate not approaching things in that manner. --Tautomers_{(T C)} 00:29, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Andrew. Page 171 of the book "Breakthrough: Elizabeth Hughes, the Discovery of Insulin, and the Making of a Medical Miracle" says "George B. Walden was put in charge of the program" for purifying insulin. If you're familiar with the history of insulin, you might agree that insulin purification and production was an extremely important milestone in the history of medicine, science, pharmacology, and humanity. Also Tautomers, this is the second page in a row now where I've seen you trying to delete a page of a notable deceased chemist. Can you perhaps stop bringing these to AfD? Perhaps try the talk page, then WikiProject Chemistry, then talk to some other users about it first? Dr. Universe (talk) 07:32, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If you view
WP:Chemistry you'll see I have posed a series of pages for deletion in the last week. I am in the process of learning how this is done and I am not always going to do this correctly. That being said, I do stand by my AfD here and all others I have done. I appreciate your feedback but it is not substantive enough for me to switch my opinion to keep. --Tautomers_{(T C)} 20:54, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:17, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the sourcing currently in the article isn't good enough to justify a keep, but there is sufficient coverage of his work in scholarly articles. I can't access the Who's Who article mentioned; while that isn't a great source for demonstrating notability it is often useful. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 17:45, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:32, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Andrew. Improve instead of deleting it. --hroest 20:17, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and mention briefly at significant coverage is found, but even full deletion would not disrupt existing articles too much, as all necessary context in any article that mentions him is conveyed in the simple statement that he studied insulin for Eli Lilly; no Wikilinking needed. --Animalparty! (talk) 19:04, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
If there were an article specifically about Eli Lilly and insulin (or even a stand-alone History of Eli Lilly and Company), I might support a merge/redirect. As it is, I don't think the top-level company article is a good target for this type of biography. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 19:09, 20 July 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 Cinema Bandi. Daniel (talk) 01:23, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Praveen Kandregula

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

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

He has only directed one movie so far. The sources are basically reviews about his movie. A source from The Hindu in the article is an interview with this person where he talks about the movie. This director fails GNG Pillechan (പിള്ളേച്ചനോട് പറ) 08:28, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Pillechan (പിള്ളേച്ചനോട് പറ) 08:28, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Pillechan (പിള്ളേച്ചനോട് പറ) 08:28, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I am the author of this article and I strongly feel this article needs to stay open for people.

Wikipedia is a place where people come, participate and create pages and make updates to it. I have watched the movie Cinema Bandi and when I was looking for details about the director I have not found them. This led me to make the article. Only when the article is here, others may come and improve it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Advertite (talk • contribs) 10:43, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Cinema Bandi, their only notable work. -- Ab207 (talk) 20:02, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:25, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:10, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to WP:TOOSOON. Peter303x (talk) 23:13, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:30, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Badha (2006 film)

Badha (2006 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. Donaldd23 (talk) 11:57, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 11:57, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 11:57, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Doesn't qualify
WP:NFILM. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 16:40, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete: Fails GNG/NFILM. Nothing notable found. Kolma8 (talk) 04:58, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Cannot find any thing in English; unless any Marathi sources are found, NFILM is not met. -- Ab207 (talk) 06:43, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on
"soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:33, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Wessex Male Choir

Wessex Male Choir (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

The article appears to have been largely written and maintained by two SPAs, who I assume are associated with its subject. Most of the content is a match for their website, and so a possible COPYVIO. I looked for sources to see whether it could be improved, but can find very little independent stuff online: one hit in the local press, which looks like a rehashed press release; a short review of a concert,again in the local press, with very little information about the choir; another short review by the same author, again in the local press and again with very little information; and a no-longer-available interview with the conductor of the choir on local radio (BBC Radio Oxford). Based on the sources I've been able to find, I don't think that the subject passes
WP:NBAND criterion 9, but I'm not confident that the competitions could fairly be described as "major music competitions", and I can't see any independent reporting of the wins. Girth Summit _(blether) 11:51, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Girth Summit _(blether) 11:51, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Girth Summit _(blether) 11:51, 19 July 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) 10:11, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Kishwar Chowdhury

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

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

The subject was a minor placegetter in
WP:ENTERTAINER, which the subject fails to satisfy. WWGB (talk) 10:54, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 10:54, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 10:54, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. The article is full of advertisement. DMySon (talk) 12:15, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 07:19, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:29, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:29, 22 July 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) 10:10, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Savo Kostadinovski

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

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

BLP that has been the subject of some apparent cross-wiki spamming. Articles on other wikis share the same weak sourcing, many are tagged and one is up for deletion. The sources don’t look like RIS to me and seem to be promotional, publishers blurbs, interviews and catalogue/vendor site entries. He is certainly prolific but I don’t see in depth coverage in reliable independent sources. Mccapra (talk) 10:47, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 10:47, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 10:47, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 10:47, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Macedonia-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 10:47, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Geschichte (talk) 07:50, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Isabel Gutiérrez de Bosch

Isabel Gutiérrez de Bosch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

pure promotional promotionalism. The awards are both promotional and trivial. The refs are PR. I decided not to draftify because there is no way of going forward with an acceptable article. DGG ( talk ) 10:21, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Guatemala-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:12, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:12, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ~~or Draftify~~ - the article history [21] suggests there has been content removed that could help improve the article with less substantial deletions, and the
WP:ANYBIO notability appear to be supported. Beccaynr (talk) 16:39, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment An obituary published by the same source linked above (one of the newspapers in Guatemala) notes, "The United States Embassy in Guatemala also mourned the death of Doña Isabel, whom they referred to as "a leader of a humanitarian nature, with a great spirit of service for the prosperity of Guatemala." While the President of the Republic, Alejandro Giammattei Falla, also lamented the loss of Mrs. Isabel de Bosch with an obituary." (both sources translated from Spanish). I have also updated my !vote based on the additional sources. Beccaynr (talk) 16:29, 20 July 2021 (UTC) There is also a bylined obit from Pensa Libre, another newspaper in Guatemala, also reporting on "Isabel Gutiérrez de Bosch University Scholarships" and La Plaza Isabel Gutiérrez de Bosch at the university noted above. Beccaynr (talk) 16:52, 20 July 2021 (UTC) There is also El Periódico (her Golden Fork award, 2019), a bylined obit in 2020, and scholarships in her name in 2021. There is also what appears to be a press release in Pensa Libre about the "Heroes of the Pandemic" initiative by her foundation. In 2006, El Diario de Hoy reports more than a trival mention of her impact on NGOs. Beccaynr (talk) 17:22, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: That award of the Quetzal seems to confer notability. I've given the article a lead sentence, and linked and sourced that award. PamD 07:43, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 21:50, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Republica confirms that she has received the highest award in Guatemala so meets #1 of
WP:GNG anyway due to coverage linked above. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:49, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. The
WP:ANYBIO. pburka (talk) 21:45, 25 July 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) 10:10, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tap for Tap

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

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

Apparently promotional article about defunct company. No evidence of notability under
WP:CORPDEPTH. There's no evidence this company was ever notable. Tagged for notability since 2012, no improvement since then; no reasonable prospects for organic improvement. (I'd have PRODed it, but it was PRODed previously.) David Gerard (talk) 09:57, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 09:57, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 09:57, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 09:57, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 09:57, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 09:57, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. TechCrunch is a reliable source, and the TechCrunch article is a staff-written article rather than a press release. 13:25, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

@
WP:ORGCRIT. --hroest 14:35, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
@Hannes Röst: All of the articles cited as references are staff-written rather than press releases, and I think they are collectively enough to demonstrate notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:06, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TechCrunch is yellow-rated on
WP:CORPDEPTH; per RSP, Careful consideration should be given to ... what extent they rely on public relations material from their subject for their writing - and this appears entirely to be that - David Gerard (talk) 15:17, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

delete.
WP:ORGCRIT requires significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. A single article in TechCrunch is not sufficient. --hroest 14:35, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - fails
WP:MILL press releases or is attributable to the company itself. In addition, few of the sources covering the company's product releases attest to why the company itself is notable when compared to other mobile payment services or add networks. As noted by the nominator, the company is also defunct, and while this point does not determine notability, it does indicate it is unlikely that the existing sourcing issues can be addressed. SamHolt6 (talk) 12:25, 22 July 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. Comes down to a difference in opinion on whether he meets NPOL/GNG, and there is no consensus either way for that after 14 days. Daniel (talk) 02:26, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Suman Kumar Mallick (Indian Politician)

Suman Kumar Mallick (Indian Politician) (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-elected politician, fails
WP:NPOLITICIAN. GermanKity (talk) 08:42, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 08:42, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 08:42, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 08:42, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable, unelected party functionary.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:05, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a major political party leader and has received significant press coverage, pass
WP:NPOL.--Biplab Anand (Talk) 04:06, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 09:13, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, though i know that getting elected to an office is not a precondition for the person to qualify
talk) 00:00, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. He has held national offices and he is one of the notable leaders of India's ruling political party, so he passes
WP:NPOL. He also received significant press coverage.- Danish Daniel 99 (talk) 09:40, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep, easily passes
talk) 13:38, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - yeah, clearly meets the requirements of
WP:GNG as far as I can see. St★lwart¹¹¹ 09:52, 23 July 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) 02:26, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

AREAi

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

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

Non-notable organization. The article relies on brief mentions and sponsored news articles. fails
WP:NORG. GermanKity (talk) 08:39, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 08:39, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 08:39, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Per rationale by
WP:NGO. Furthermore when your are 9 days old and your fist edit is a well created article with a good use of ES, It does leave very little room to AGF especially when the article attempts to promote its subject. Celestina007 (talk) 21:38, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 09:12, 19 July 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) 02:25, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Emily Glazer

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

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

Do not meet
significant coverage about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. GermanKity (talk) 08:37, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 08:37, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 08:37, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 08:37, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 08:37, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable journalist. Yes, she received the 2017 New York Press Club Award for Consumer Reporting. Yes she was interviewed as an alumni at Northwestern. And yes this article exists, but it really isn't an IRS source. And none of these, individually or combined, are sufficient to satisfy
WP:JOURNALIST. Cabrils (talk) 23:10, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 09:12, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:38, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Habersham (producer)

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

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

Lacking in details and credible sources, unless Sound Bits reviews are of any value. Fails
WP:GNG. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:34, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:57, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:48, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Possible keep - More sources are needed, but artist is on Bedrock Records which is a credible independent label. Kevin19781 (talk) 01:01, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Zero depth-of-coverage from third-party sources. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:37, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 09:02, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:MUSICBIO.-
KH-1 (talk) 06:27, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Lacks significant coverage.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 19:54, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:39, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Lapinski

Paul Lapinski (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 be notable as lacking (multiple) independent reliable sources covering the topic in depth (i.e. does not meet the GNG). I see a couple of trivial hits in Google News but that's it. The article as written also has a strong flavor of COI/autobiography to it. Izno (talk) 07:28, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Izno (talk) 07:28, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:57, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article fails GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:38, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 09:02, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails GNG, not seeing anything other than routine and local coverage, no suggestion of awards or involvement in significant projects or anything else to confer notability. Of three sources in the article, two are to Wikipedia itself. Neiltonks (talk) 12:14, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete fails GNG, no notable sources. -- Kevin19781 (talk) 18:21, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not enough coverage to pass general notability guidelines. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 04:00, 23 July 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) 02:25, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kanya Bharathi

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Kanya Bharathi

Articles for deletion/Kanya Bharathi (2nd nomination)

Kanya Bharathi (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 meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for biographies Iamfarzan (talk) 04:49, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Iamfarzan (talk) 04:49, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Iamfarzan (talk) 04:49, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Iamfarzan (talk) 04:49, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:18, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 09:01, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nomination is vague, it doesn't say how the subject does not meet "Wikipedia's notability guideline for biographies". A little eye on the article says that the subject has a good role in a number of notable television serials, provided with few roles in some movies (I'm not sure how many of these are notable) but AFAICS, it merits to be kept. ─
^(talk) 14:57, 19 July 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. Daniel (talk) 02:23, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sumedha Karmahe

Sumedha Karmahe (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. ----Rdp060707|talk 08:01, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ----Rdp060707|talk 08:01, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ----Rdp060707|talk 08:01, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:12, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:12, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as passes criteria 10 of
WP:NMUSIC with songs in multiple notable films as shown in the table in the article and confirmed in sources such as here so deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:55, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep per Atlantic306,
WP:BASIC, and I’m still an outsider, says Sumedha Karmahe (DNA India, 2019), The Hindu, 2018, ("...for the soundtrack of 3 Storeys, titled ‘Raasleela’. A pleasantly engaging melody set to a dandiya-esque folksy rhythm, finely rendered by Sumedha Karmahe."), The Hindu, 2017 ("The best rendition of ‘Nazm Nazm’ features Sumedha Karmahe that’s accentuated with great flute play."), High Pitch (Indian Express, 2010), Sa Re Ga Ma Pa - A big ticket to Bollywood for Sumedha Karmahe (India Today, 2007). Beccaynr (talk) 01:35, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep According to WP rules clearly meet
WP:NSINGER. Also I have added some news coverage. Bapinghosh (talk) 13:08, 22 July 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 (G4). (non-admin closure) AllyD (talk) 12:32, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sumrat Singh

Sumrat Singh (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 Politician. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 07:54, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 07:54, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 07:54, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 07:54, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article was speedily deleted under
G4. Old discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sumarat Singh -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:01, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 07:46, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indonesia–Vietnam football rivalry

Indonesia–Vietnam football rivalry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Okay, first of all, and somewhat confusingly, this article actually seems to be about a rivalry between Thailand and Vietnam on the most part. All 6 references and most of the table is about those games. Secondly, I can find no evidence whatsoever that these two countries have a strong footballing rivalry that actually warrants an article. According to 11v11, they have played against each other a lot of times but Wikipedia isn't a directory of football results; there needs to be significant coverage of the actual rivalry itself to warrant an article. Thailand v Vietnam and Indonesia v Malaysia are both well-known rivalries but Indonesia v Vietnam isn't one, please correct me if I'm wrong. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:21, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:21, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:21, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:21, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:23, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think I agree with the assessment, this seems somewhat
WP:Indiscriminate collection of information which is a no. Govvy (talk) 09:55, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 11:26, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article is basically just a list of match results, goal-scorers and so on, many of which (as commented above) involve Vietnam playing Thailand not Indonesia. No text, nothing about a notable rivalry. Neiltonks (talk) 12:20, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete just because teams have played lots of matches against each other, this doesn't make it a rivalry. No evidence that there is a notable rivalry between the two teams. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:22, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the creator has updated the article and removed the Thailand references. This is still, in my opinion, not at all notable as none of the references even mention a rivalry between these two teams let alone explore the concept in significant detail. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:26, 20 July 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) 10:09, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

HCL2

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/HCL2 (2nd nomination)

HCL2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

HCL2 is about a human
PMID 3477350
, hence is not notable. Boghog (talk) 06:16, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:11, 19 July 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. This consensus is on the weaker side of things (hence totally agree with the relist), so a draftify for potential improvement is definitely open as an option, however even with a further 7 days and no further contributions, happy to call this a delete. Daniel (talk) 01:34, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Melany Sheldon

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

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

Not enough independent coverage to satisfy
WP:NSPORT. JTtheOG (talk) 22:35, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

comment hitting two homers in a major european tournament, seem major to me. lots of coverage in Italian press. --Abetpluto (talk) 17:55, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@
WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 20:29, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
the winning teams of the qualifiers seem notable, when the field is six teams, and the rosters are smaller, unlike volleyball, or field hockey. --Abetpluto (talk) 17:09, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@
WP:GNG regardless of which tournament she played in. Check out the softball article I just created yesterday: Sashel Palacios. Multiple independent sources which cover her directly and in detail instead of just a passing mention. JTtheOG (talk) 20:01, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:57, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:57, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:57, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~. Am I missing something? She's an Olympic athlete, or at least she will be in a little more than a week, probably before this discussion is closed. By consensus, we keep all Olympians. pburka (talk) 21:16, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Pburka: Actually, yes. It's true that she was a member of the national team, and was even on a preliminary shortlist of 22 women, but she was ultimately left off the final Olympic roster after they cut it down to 15 players. JTtheOG (talk) 21:25, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That seems like the important information I was missing! pburka (talk) 21:39, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Pburka: My fault for not making that clear. JTtheOG (talk) 21:44, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this seems to not cut it, a sub-Olympian so to speak. Geschichte (talk) 21:22, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:11, 19 July 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) 23:55, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Micro-initiative

Micro-initiative (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-encyclopedic... mini essay. PepperBeast (talk) 02:00, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - limited research to support it as a notable topic. Jamzze (talk) 08:32, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:50, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:21, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:40, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Malkiewicz

Tom Malkiewicz (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 subject. PepperBeast (talk) 01:54, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:58, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:58, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:21, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I could find no coverage in reliable secondary sources. Devonian Wombat (talk) 06:26, 20 July 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. Daniel (talk) 23:54, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I Am God's Project

I Am God's Project (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Insufficient notability for an independent article Dronebogus (talk) 00:37, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:14, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Grammy nomination strongly suggests that the album is notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:15, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, for the same reason I removed the PROD...a Grammy nomination makes it notable. Donaldd23 (talk) 03:25, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:05, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Common-sense applies. RomanSpa (talk) 07:47, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per
WP:NALBUM, being nominated for a Grammy suggests notability. Neiltonks (talk) 12:28, 19 July 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. Daniel (talk) 23:54, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bullfrogs and Butterflies II

Bullfrogs and Butterflies II (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Insufficient notability for an independent article Dronebogus (talk) 00:37, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, for the same reason I removed the PROD...a Grammy nomination makes it notable. Donaldd23 (talk) 03:25, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:05, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:06, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - winning a Dove Award and being nominated for a Grammy is enough for this to be notable, even if reviews are lacking Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:08, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Same reasoning as others here. RomanSpa (talk) 07:48, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per
WP:NALBUM, being nominated for a Grammy suggests notability. Neiltonks (talk) 12:30, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - winning notable award.BabbaQ (talk) 12:51, 21 July 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. Daniel (talk) 23:54, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Music Machine II

Music Machine II (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Insufficient notability for an independent article Dronebogus (talk) 00:36, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, for the same reason I removed the PROD...a Grammy nomination makes it notable. Donaldd23 (talk) 03:26, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:06, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:06, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - winning a Dove Award and being nominated for a Grammy is enough for this to be notable, even if reviews are lacking Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:09, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Grammy nomination makes this seem like a common-sense keep. RomanSpa (talk) 07:50, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per
WP:NALBUM, being nominated for a Grammy suggests notability. Neiltonks (talk) 12:30, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - no brainer for Grammy nominees. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:04, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to band article. The Grammy and Dove awards do help, but unfortunately that's the only special notability this topic has, and there needs to be other SIGCOV to make this article beyond stub length. Newspapers.com searches find nothing beyond this advertisement about a live performance related to the album. Online, the best you get is a passing mention in this article about Barry McGuire, and GBooks only gives you mentions in listings. Other works in Candle's discography have won BabbaQ (talk) 12:51, 21 July 2021 (UTC)or been nominated for grammies and doves, but we don't have articles on those. 👨x🐱 (talk) 13:12, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, this is not true. As far as I can tell, 3 of their other albums have been nominated for Grammy's and they all have articles (although the same editor has put them up for AfD as well). Donaldd23 (talk) 16:22, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Grammy nomiated. Case closed.BabbaQ (talk) 12:52, 21 July 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. Daniel (talk) 23:54, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ants'hillvania

Ants'hillvania (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Not notable enough to warrant its own page. Dronebogus (talk) 00:29, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because of the Grammy nomination. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:50, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:50, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:09, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for the same reason Eastmain stated. I do recommend more references be added to the article, however. WaddlesJP13 (talk) 02:54, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, for the same reason I removed the PROD...a Grammy nomination makes it notable. Donaldd23 (talk) 03:23, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:07, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. You'd have to be a Christian music nerd to care about this article, but within its domain of knowledge its Grammy nomination makes it notable. RomanSpa (talk) 07:53, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not all notable music is mainstream, and per
WP:NALBUM, being nominated for a Grammy suggests notability. Neiltonks (talk) 12:31, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - grammy nom. Come on, clearly notable. WP:NMUSIC.BabbaQ (talk) 12:50, 21 July 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) 01:09, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Elvis Schmiedekamp

Elvis Schmiedekamp (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 do not believe this person meets notability, but rather would fall under notable for a single event Mpen320 (talk) 00:14, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:15, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:15, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He is notable as an advocate of customer-first customer service, which much of the banking industry regards as too expensive. An advertising campaign is more than a single event. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:18, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. You're not notable just for doing your job. RomanSpa (talk) 07:56, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The billboard campaign may have been successful but that doesn't make the people involved individually notable, and nothing else suggests he's anything other than a run-of-the-mill executive. Neiltonks (talk) 12:35, 19 July 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_July_19&oldid=1035653062"

[1] ttps://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/ladies-first-in-tory-plan-to-abolish-primogeniture-3qznb7j5l

[2] ttps://www.college-of-arms.gov.uk/resources/peerages-and-baronetcies/proving-succession-to-a-peerage

[3] ttps://www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-and-offices/offices/lords/house-of-lords-external-communications/by-elections/

[4] ttp://www.hereditarypeers.com/NOTICES.HTM

[5] ttps://www.parliament.uk/about/mps-and-lords/members/electing-mps/candidates/

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]