Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 July 25

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< July 24	July 26 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete all. Daniel (talk) 22:11, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cobbs Corner, Virginia

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

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allen Shop Corner, Virginia for background. Essentially, these are all named intersections, road junctions, or survey/boundary points mislabelled by GNIS and then mass-imported into Wikipedia. Dealing with the Fairfax County ones as a batch, as they are many.

While there are passing mentions to these places as landmarks or guide points, this coverage does not indicate a

WP:GEOLAND

pass or any form of notability. There are also some false positives (for instance, "Cobbs Corner" seems to have been the name of a clothing brand in the 60s and 70s and "Lees Corner" looks to be the name of a historic intersection in Newport News and an elementary school in Maryland). None of these meet GEOLAND or have significant coverage.

Note: I am not including

WP:BEFORE

purposes, and Farrs Corner appears to have been the site of an earthwork in the leadup to the First Battle of Bull Run that has some coverage.

Included in this nomination as well are:

Hog Farm _Talk 06:25, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 06:25, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 06:25, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's perfectly fine to refer to them as unincorporated communities, since the people live at them form a community that is also not incorporated. Essentially, any junction, station, port, etc. can be labeled as an unincorporated community as long as there is a population centered around it forming a community in that location. WaddlesJP13 (talk) 20:12, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Which Wikipedia guidelines do you base that upon, seeing as the nominator cited an actual guidelines which says the opposite? Geschichte (talk) 21:33, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not basing on a guideline but rather the definition of what an
unincorporated community is described by Wikipedia, and the many other similar hamlets in the US and Virginia with existing Wikipedia pages. These are all communities administered by not themselves but rather the county or city they are within since they have no local government. I live in Virginia and can verify for some of these places and the like that they do exist and have the structure of a junction-based community. WaddlesJP13 (talk) 21:49, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

WaddlesJP13 What makes you say people live at these places or that they form distinct communities? –dlthewave ☎ 21:42, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all These mass-produced
WP:GNIS mistakes are not notable communities, if they are even communities at all. Better sourcing is required, and the above comment does not have basis in substantive sources. An arbitrary collection of people or places arbitrary labeled or mislabeled a community – e.g. a neighborhood – is NOT automatically notable per GEOLAND2. Reywas92^Talk 03:05, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect Butts corner to Fairfax Station, Virginia, Lees Corner to Chantilly, Virginia, Crowells Corner to Wolf Trap, Virginia. Keep Comptons Corner, as it appears to be an actual community [1] [2]. Donovan's Corner is mentioned in some fiction, so it may be notable as well. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 12:27, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of these indicate Comptons Corner is a community beyond a named road intersection like the rest. The former, "The highway runs through pleasant suburban communities like Manassas Park, and then Compton's Corner", words it in a separate clause in that it isn't a community. The latter just uses a name from the topo map and does not describe it otherwise. Reywas92^Talk 14:24, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all These fail
WP:GEOLAND
#2 which requires places without legal recognition to meet GNG. They're also sourced solely to database entries, which are specifically excluded from consideration when assessing notability.

Another issue is that the "unincorporated community" label is original research. GNIS lists these as "populated places"; for those who aren't familiar,

WP:GNIS has a good explanation of why this is a problem. When place names were first copied over from the topo maps, there was a great deal of ambiguity between landmarks such as a crossroads and bona fide communities since both used similar typefaces. The Susie, WA AfD is a classic example of numerous small railroad junctions within a nuclear facility that were mislabeled as populated places, showing that GNIS simply cannot be relied on to characterize these places correctly. There is no evidence that these are or were anything more than named intersections. –dlthewave ☎ 21:39, 23 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, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. Not convinced by the above arguments that these have any form of encyclopedic notability. czar 19:57, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Typical GNIS junk. For details about GNIS issues, search Wikipedia talk:Notability (geographic features) for GNIS in the archives. None of these are legally recognized to meet #1 of
WP:RS sources that describe these locations in detail. Cxbrx (talk) 20:55, 31 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 13:42, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anthiponvettam

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

Non-notable film, lacking significant coverage per

WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 19:48, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:07, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:07, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PROD
, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:44, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't compare the content of the previous article instance which was deleted in January 2021, but
WP:NFILM notability. AllyD (talk) 06:54, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete: Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Nothing notable on a WP:BEFORE. Kolma8 (talk) 18:26, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Fails notability and
WP:NFILM. Alex-h (talk) 07:04, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete, Per above Fails
WP:NFILM. Frigidpolarbear (talk) 13:35, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Fails
WP:NFILM DonaldD23 talk to me 13:20, 30 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. czar 19:51, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamed Hossam Eldakak

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Mohamed Hossam Eldakak

Articles for deletion/Mohamed Hossam Eldakak (2nd nomination)

Mohamed Hossam Eldakak (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 personal. The article
WP:AHIJACK) to make it about himself. Please see d:special:diff/1448647491/1448847107 and d:special:diff/1453704112/1462302044. This user already blocked on arwiki since April 2021 due to socking and self-promotion (previous article he wrote about himself on arwiki ar:محمد الصاوي (اعلامي)). Plus he used his socks on enwiki also, like Special:Contributions/Hossam Elsawi and Special:Contributions/Mhossam99 (all of his socks on arwiki here). About the 3 refs used, (2+3) takes about Adel Emam and (1) is general link --Alaa :)..! 21:37, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Ping @Discospinster, Mccapra, and Celestina007: from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mohamed Hossam Eldakak. Hope if you can next time ping me or any active trusted arwiki user(s), as there's many ar.users who try to take advantage of the English Wikipedia community's poor knowledge of Arabic references. Thanks in advance --Alaa :)..! 21:40, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:44, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:44, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Alaa: thanks for your message. If I’ve understood correctly the actor Mohamed Hosam Eldakak is notable, so if the article content was about him, all would be well. But you’re saying that although there are sources on Dakak, the current content of the article isn’t actually about Dakak but about someone else, who isn’t notable. Have I got that right? Mccapra (talk) 23:44, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Mccapra, @علاء, The main issue in this article is that it was created by a socks user, and contains information without sources, it was altered so many times to fit the socks-self-promoter name, even the references and the current content, it is about Adel Emam, not Mohamed Al-Daqqaq, it is almost a copy of Adel Emam article, and by reviewing Mohamed Al-Daqqaq works credits in the only found source (which is semi self-publish BTW) we can find that it meets WP:BARE, so in conclusion: the article current content is misleading and inaccurate. HitomiAkane (talk) 03:06, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Alaa:@HitomiAkane: during the last deletion discussion I was able to find coverage of the subject at 1, 2 3, and 4. What is your view of these sources please? Regardless of the current content of the article and the fact that various editors have damaged it, is the subject notable or not? If the subject isn’t notable I’m fine with deleting the article. However if the subject is notable, the article needs to be rewritten and protected from vandalism, not deleted. I’ve no idea of the motivation for the behaviours you describe but the fact an article has been hijacked isn’t really a good reason for deleting it. Mccapra (talk) 07:45, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Mccapra, Reading 1, 2 3, and 4, we can see that it was writing from a promotional view, unfortunately, I face a lot of fake-paid campaigns from the same sources in arzwiki, I don't say it is the case here but that makes me wonder, and digging more in the subject credits mentioned here, I found that there are a lot of fake credits and the rest, credits him as a co-actor, so bottom line, and in my personal opinion, the subject meets the Wikipedia:Bare notability. HitomiAkane (talk) 09:17, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ok thanks that’s very helpful. If the only sources we can find are promotional then it doesn’t sound like a pass of
WP:NACTOR. Mccapra (talk) 21:51, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Thanks HitomiAkane for your clarifications! Hello Mccapra, sorry for late. Please see special:permalink/1030446077, you'll found there's a lot of contradictory information between the article text, the information box, the categories, and also among the article text iyself! so even the article itself before hijacking was unacceptable! --Alaa :)..! 22:04, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete well after all this discussion I guess I need to !vote. Mccapra (talk) 06:35, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Wouldn't mind some further input to try and determine a more solid consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 23:36, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Self-contradictory article. The first sentence says, "Mohamed hossam (
Arabic: محمد حسام; born 18 July 2002) is an Egyptian film, television, and stage actor." However, the article later says that he was "one of the most influential Arab public figures in the 1980s and 1990s" -- that is, before he was born. Apparently this article took biographical information regarding someone else and applied it to the wrong person. If the subject really is notable, then someone can re-create the article about him and include only information that is actually about him, not somebody else. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:41, 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 merge to E-40. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:55, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sick Wid It Records

Sick Wid It Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
)

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

There is no substantive coverage of this company per se in
WP:NCORP. PROD was removed without addressing the issues therein ("list articles like these are handy to have"). Yappy2bhere (talk) 20:21, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:08, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:08, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:08, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep or Merge with
WP:NOTCATALOG. The label has received significant main stream coverage in reliable sources but rarely on its own terms. Almost all references are in media centred on E-40, not specifically about the label. The label is significant to E-40's career and that of other rappers so it should definitely be covered somewhat comprehensively somewhere. See example sources here: [4] [5] [6] [7] Vladimir.copic (talk) 00:49, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: some other good sources (the first one particularly notes the label's importance in the history of hip-hop labels): [8] [9] Vladimir.copic (talk) 01:08, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Article needs some clean-up by removing the discography per
WP:GNG with reliable sources indicated by Vladimir.copic. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 10:30, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

All trivial mentions. You say "and adding some history," but there are no sources with which to improve the article. You've just read 6 sources. Do you know 3 facts about the label besides "It was started by E40?" Yappy2bhere (talk) 11:03, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 23:33, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with E-40 if there's really no other way to expand or improve the article. WaddlesJP13 (talk | contributions) 02:43, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets
WP:GNG with sources presented by Vladimir. They're non-trivial and reliable enough IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 03:56, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment Here's what those sources actually say:

[1] "Sick Wid It Records, founded in 1989 by ... E-40, has left its mark... [two label founders] have acknowledged they learned a lot ... from the strategies that 40 implemented at Sick Wid It."
[2] "E-40 is the founder of Sick Wid It Records ... [His traits] are embodied by his homegrown record label, Sick Wid It Records."
[3] "[E-40] pioneered the 'rapper as independent label head' model with Sick Wid It Records, forcing the industry to take notice when his 1993 EP [succeeded] with no major-label distribution deal."
[4] "E-40 ... his sister, his brother, and his cousin ... started their own company, Sick Wid It, and hawked tapes out of the trunk of their car ... As a result of the huge success of [E-40's] The Mailman, Jive licensed Sick Wid It and distributed their product internationally."
[5] "[M]edia monopolies snapped up ... indie labels like ... E-40's Sick Wid It Records"
[6] "E40 ... started his own independent Sick Wid It Records in 1990... [H]e subsequently signed a distribution deal with [Jive Records] for Sick Wid It's catalog."

So what we know about the company is this:
(1) Founded in 1989 (or maybe 1990)...
(2) by E-40 (or maybe E-40 and kin).
(3) Jive licensed the catalog on the strength of a successful E-40 song...
~~(4) The label was sold to a "media monopoly".~~ (Maybe; source is spongy on that point.)

That's it; the article won't be any more than that. Sources disagree on the first two facts, the last fact is supported with weasel-words (this label, or "like" this label? which "media monopoly") and requires better sourcing. Sources [2]-[6] are clearly incidental mentions of the label in stories about E-40, and all six sources together aren't sufficient to write a proper article. (Unless I just did, in which case nm.) Yappy2bhere (talk) 18:23, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sick Wid It Records wasn't sold; it's still owned by E-40 [10]. Strike ~~[5]~~ as a reliable source. Yappy2bhere (talk) 19:45, 31 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
^Talk∕_Contribs 14:57, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Dinesh Kunwar Patel

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected
spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp
|username}}.

Dinesh Kunwar Patel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
)

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

low profile individual, as an engineer and academic. Some details from this page can be merged into Shalu Robot. Yeeno (talk) 🍁 01:26, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Yeeno (talk) 🍁 01:26, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Yeeno (talk) 🍁 01:26, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Yeeno (talk) 🍁 01:26, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Respected
Dinesh Kunwar Patel
cited above.

Dear sir, in my opinion it was a really wonderful and big achievement (can't not be categorized as low-profile) that a person created AI humanoid robot with recycled material in such a extremely low cost, which can be compared with many sophisticated robots, capability-wise. The developer become the best motivator as an educationist & as an Engineer for all the young scientist of the world towards AI research in very low budget.

As per Wikipedia's High Profile definition, he has given one or more scheduled interviews to a notable publication, website, or television or radio program (please see in his public appearance section of his article).

He interviewed by TV Channels, Websites and Radios. Therefore, I think he should be considered as an individual in his name for his wonderful work to motivate others.

Best Regards

--LuckyThor (talk) 09:28, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Hey Yeeno,~~

I think this article should stay considering the widespread coverage the man has received in Asian (primarily Indian) media. Humanoid robots are rare in India, which is currently lacking behind in their development from several :nations. In my knowledge, the man has received high appreciation from local government officials and high academician of the country. It would be nice to have a article on him.

~~--2409:4040:E8C:8DF:196A:B6B1:5E3:EFBD (talk) 10:26, 11 July 2021 (UTC)— 2409:4040:E8C:8DF:196A:B6B1:5E3:EFBD (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.~~ [reply]
WP:LOUTSOCK, see Special:Diff/1033543812. Blablubbs (talk) 10:08, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

The article shouldn't be deleted as the person is now quite popular and his background may positively influence many people. He can be an inspiration for those who have lack of resources and still they have potential to do the wonders. — Dinotrainer (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 19:46, 13 July 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Delete - though he has public apperance in media, it is not enough to pass
WP:NPROF. His contribution is already mentioned in Shalu Robot. nirmal (talk) 09:35, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:04, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going for a weak keep on the grounds that people have a legitimate interest in the sort of personality that creates a robot with personality. This makes such personalities more notable than an average engineer. It is very difficult to untangle the extent to which newspaper articles about the robot and its(her!) inventor are about the robot, or about the inventor, so the wiki-lawyer can swing it either way. My weak-keep is based on the idea that the article about the person can reasonably contain information such as his family life (of legitimate human interest: that he has created a robot-'daughter' but has no flesh-and-blood daughter) which sits uneasily in an article centred correctly on the robot. Give them both articles, and you can write about robots in the robot one, about humans in the human one. Elemimele (talk) 18:14, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Looking for further contributions from uninvolved editors, referencing BLP/GNG and this article's suitability or otherwise.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 23:28, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to
WP:INDISCRIMINATE and details about personal life does not warrant a seperate article. -- Ab207 (talk) 21:21, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect to Shalu Robot per above. Hypogaearoots (talk) 07:26, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:46, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Betan

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

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

Appears to be a long-running autobiography created and maintained for years by Peter Betan himself or someone closely related. Several claims lack sources, and the only legitimate independent coverage appearing in the article are two publications local to Miami, where the subject lives. The name-dropping of opening acts is reminiscent of the example given in
WP:MUSICBIO
.
This article is also being discussed at Wikipedia:Help desk#Help needed to authenticate further the artist / musician/ composer/ guitarist "Peter Betan" article. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:23, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:22, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:22, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom fails
WP:MUSICBIO. Theroadislong (talk) 21:26, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Umm, those two links are the same. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:29, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I meant to add
WP:musicbio!. Theroadislong (talk) 21:38, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment - If the article is deleted, please also delete the redirect Betan, Peter and consider whether Betan should be unlinked or removed from the Music of Miami article. GoingBatty (talk) 22:44, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@GoingBatty: An admin deleting an article generally looks at "what links here" and cleans up anything that needs cleaning up. Not always (I've been known to forget to do this), but generally that's the process. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:19, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails
unsourced/weakly-sourced claims to be allowed to continue in its present state. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 00:09, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - Clearly a
significant coverage that is necessary here. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 02:29, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - Should have been done twelve years ago. Better late than never. -Arch dude (talk) 05:04, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am unable to find independent, in depth coverage to establish musical or general notability. Star Mississippi 17:16, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is Betinfo the contributor(s) of the Article mentioned: "Peter Betan" Yes, there is a COI in the article. The contributor and the subject of the article are one of the same. In good faith, this article which has been in Wikipedia for 12 years has merit. Admittedly so, it has been somewhat neglected over the years. Links, citations, verifiable sources die and it is up to the contributors and editors to replace the dead links with new active ones to maintain a current, factual and cohesive status for the reader of the articles. The contributor / subject of the article is not well versed in using the tools that wikipedia edit pages provide to authenticate a fact or credential to the subject. We apologize for not using the tools correctly which now the ramifications of being poorly versed with the documentation / verification tools have surfaced into possible deletion and accusations of being non-factual, or fabricated information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Betinfo (talk • contribs) 26 July 2021 (UTC)

We are pretty sure the "Peter Betan" article will be deleted, but please let me assure that the article was never motivated by self promotion. The subject of the article has had plenty of promotion, press releases, local TV / Radio appearances, performances in all venues and notoriety on the web for decades, and has been a professional original artist / performer for over 30 years noted by his web presence and artistic cultural contributions to the area where he resides, performs and records. Some of the many opening act credentials that the subject of the article has were not mentioned because there was no obtainable web based verification for them, but the concert openings mentioned in the article are verifiable ( we assumed linking a mentioning of the concert openers in a popular news publication would suffice) The article "Peter Betan" was never intended to be a vehicle of self promotion or for inducement to selling music product or anything else related to self promotion. It was intended for providing knowledge, career and historical information coupled with verifiable credentials and music catalog information strictly pertaining to the subject of the article. The subject of the article already has had decades of regional notable notoriety as an independent original artist before the article was created. Web links and citations go dead over the years and some of the factual information in these articles loose their verification. The article "Peter Betan" was created with the utmost objectivity and not motivated by self promotion and absolutely nothing is fabricated. When an artist is rich and famous Wikipedia will have no problem accepting articles about these respective artists, and that is all well, good and agreed. With all due respect,I believe Wikipedia could use some improvement in the category of articles pertaining to independent artists. There are many who are true creative professionals and who merit articles about them and have contributed artistically to our culture, we just never hear about them or looked over. Wikipedia is a web based encyclopedia and should never be a selective one. We don't believe it is. If Wikipedia decides to delete the article "Peter Betan" we will accept the decision ad bare no ill will. The contributor(s) and subject of the article want to thank Wikipedia for providing this article to interested readers for 12 years. Lastly and again, We apologize with regard the COI and we vehemently state that the article "Peter Betan" was NOT created for the purpose of self promotion, but for solely providing knowledge, historical, career information coupled with the subjects published music catalog, achievements and credentials. Sincerely and with much thanks - Betinfo (talk) 19:25, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

was NOT created for the purpose of... promotion, but for solely providing knowledge, historical, career information coupled with the subjects published music catalog, achievements and credentials is oxymoronic on its face and what most promoters say when they're told their article's promotional. My bigger concern is the unsourced claims. You're damned lucky this didn't mutate into another Seigenthaler. We require these sources for a reason, and those claims existing is a disservice to him, Wikipedia readers, his fans, and us editors who're forced to either bring the article into compliance or delete it. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 20:31, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't find any significant secondary coverage, the sources in the article are mostly dead links which doesn't help. Pawnkingthree (talk) 21:37, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLUDGEON
by now-blocked COI editor collapsed for readability

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

RECONSIDER: The article "Peter Betan" has been a part of wikipedia knowledge for 12 years. This article has merit. When first created the wikipedia editors and users were very supportive and assisted thru the process of publishing, and bringing the article to a level of compliance. Wikipedia published the article legitimately 12 years ago. We continue to stand our ground regarding the article "Peter Betan" It is NOT an article for promotion and was never intended to be. It is an article which provides solely knowledge, historical / career information coupled with discography and achievement credentials of the articles subject. Jeske Couriani has prejudiced his perspective by impulsive judgement, false accusations of fabrication and making a very poor comparison of the "Peter Betan" article to that of the "Seigenthal" article. And it is my opinion that he has no, or offered any proof to his unfounded claim when he stated: "That's what promoters do when they're told they are promoters" This is only a notion and a poorly preconceived opinion. We are NOT promoters. We understand and respect Wikipedia's regulations and guidelines and apologize profusely for the unintentional un-sourced claims in the article, our inexperience in utilizing the tools for linking and claiming documented web sources and the COI. In our previous comment on this page we explained that claims, links and sources expire, lapse and die out. We did not use the tools to replace these claims for updated ones properly and correctly hence, the current situation of nomination to delete the article "Peter Betan" We will not be doing any further editing or additions to the article "Peter Betan" and are asking for help from wikipedia to further improve the authenticity of this article as well as bringing it to the level of compliance if wikipedia decides not to delete it. Either way, we will accept the decision of deletion with no ill will. With much thanks - Betinfo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Betinfo (talk • contribs) 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Delete,
WP:SNOW. Peter, you had a good run here, posting and tending to your autobiography for 12 years, before I came across it the other day. English Wikipedia now has over 6 million articles, many of which fly under the radar, sometimes for a long time; that this article was never previously challenged doesn't necessarily mean the community accepted it, but rather, that nobody gave it much scrutiny. For the closing administrator, you're welcome to conclude whether Mr. Betan is the sole editor for his account. I can't make heads or tails of it [11]. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:23, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

WP:BLUDGEON
by now blocked COI-author collapsed for readability

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION

The article "Peter Betan" has merit. It is NOT an autobiography. It is an article providing historical/ career information coupled with music discography, achievements and credentials of the subject. It did NOT "Fly under the radar" it was simply an article providing information on a true life original artist who has notoriety, influence to regional culture and has been working as an independent performing artist for over 30 years. The article "Peter Betan" is not slanderous, offensive, inciteful, fabricated, exaggerated or full of falsehoods. When you say "I cant make heads or tails of it" the readers can, and have for 12 years. The article has had and continues to have major visibility on the internet. When the subject of the article is searched or researched on the internet (just like wikipedia is) it reaches the many who want to know information on a certain subject, person or artist. The article is simply an article of historical information about a musical artist coupled with music catalog, and credentials all factual and executed with the utmost objectivity which should have been properly sourced (which the contributor (same as the subject of the article) did not do well at all) We have declared and presently again, that the article has COI's The first is that the contributor is the same as the subject of the article (one person) which I profusely apologize again about. The second COI lays with the neglect of maintenance of the article and the incorrect handling of the tools that wikipedia provides for sourcing claims and attaching them to the statements and historical facts pertaining to the subject in the article. All these issues happened due to improper usage of the research and sourcing tools wikipedia provides, not for the purpose of fabrication of falsehoods of the subject or to fool the readers. The article "Peter Betan" has merit and was created with the utmost ethical objectivity in mind. Again, apologies regarding the issues and conflicts that have occurred. Thank you— Preceding unsigned comment added by Betinfo (talk • contribs) 23:43, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The marketing speech does not work here.
Betan is hiring freelancers, which to us is considerably more damning as that is a terms of use violation that admins here can and do block for. And as I said above, "We want to share information" is functionally the same sort of argument as "We want to advertize". —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 00:08, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Bottom line, Betinfo: Exactly what criteria in
WP:MUSICBIO lays out all the ways a musical artist can be notable. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:08, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Also, prior to this AfD the article was averaging about 1 view every few days. How exactly is that not flying under the radar?--
🌀 13:52, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete, A self promotional article, fails
WP:GNG. Alex-h (talk) 07:15, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

WP:BLUDGEON
by now-blocked COI editor

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

FURTHER RECONSIDERATION: The topic of the article "Peter Betan" IS notable. Read the article and its contents it includes achievements, credentials, high level concert openings, extensive discography, film placement and factual history of a career that spans over 30 years as an independent artist. To say this is not notable or irrelevant is utterly ridiculous. This is not marketing or promotion, there is no boasting, or inducement to buy product. It is just information on a notable and significant independent artist. Your reasons for deletion are based on personal bias, have a one dimensional perspective and the fear that wikipedia will suffer if the article is left to the reader. Yes, it has defects due to mishandling of the source tools, and the subject is the same as the contributor. It has been declared and we apologize. In the final analysis, the article "Peter Betan" has merit (please see previous RECONSIDERATION comments on this page for further insight into the topic of RECONSIDERATION of the "Peter Betan" article. This article is NOT promotional. It is factual information based on the subject of the article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Betinfo (talk • contribs) 12:34, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
conflict of interest in the matter; it's one thing to advocate for an article but quite another to parrot the same arguments until the cows come home when it's clear nobody considers them to be good ones. I have read the article and its contents. Its sources are fatally lacking even by 2009 standards. I have read your arguments. They amount to "We wrote this to advertise Betan"
, as your arguments-by-bizarre-definition make painfully clear to your case's detriment.

There is no boasting, or inducement to buy product betrays a very simplistic idea of what
apparently couldn't be arsed to bring the sourcing on the article to an acceptable standard
. I would imagine if you actually cared, at some point within those 12 years you'd have actually swotted up on BLP and started either finding good sources or trimming the violating material from the article. It is just information on a notable and significant independent artist is, as I've spelt out twice now already and will spell out again, a bullshit claim that people caught promoting things on Wikipedia fall back on in an attempt to not have their promotional junk removed, and is in practise a distinction with no actual difference. [I]t has defects due to mishandling of the source tools is incorrect; the issue is that the source tools were at best underused and at worst disregarded save for the absolute bare minimum for this article to fend off 2009-era AfDs.

Now, are you done wasting your time and ours making these same, boilerplate arguments that nobody else here is taking seriously? This has started to become
disruptive. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 13:49, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

RECONSIDERATION AND LENIENCE REQUESTED IN SPITE OF FALSE ACCUSATIONS AND INSULT BY JESKE COURIANOAccusatory, slanderous and outright hostile remarks with a veil of pseudo intellect doesn't cut it. May I say your limited knowledge of what is notable borders on the pathetic. If you are now speaking for everybody as you say, then you are just embarrassing yourself further and loosing your credibility in your (whatever your job description is) We are being repetitive because our defense and claims are true and must be repeated to maintain innocence. You, (Jeske Couriano) are being very repetitive as well with the same accusatory remarks and false, hostile accusations. There is only one criteria for an artist becoming notable and that is...being established. Being established where you regionally reside, where you perform, where you create, where you make your living, where you promote, advertise and gain local popularity. The subject of the article is a regionally established artist and has been for over 30 years. The subject of the article has not had the need or desire to use the article "Peter Betan" as a means of promotion... just as a means to maintain notability within the "family of wikipedia" as you have welcomed me . Wikipedia has not contributed nor used for the subjects popularity or marketing, nor has the subject mentioned any promotional commentary in the article. We have declared that the article has COI's due to negligence in the maintenance of the source tools provided and that the contributor is the same as the subject. The article has been edited, sliced, diced and stripped to its bare bones by your editor(s). Ok, that's all well and good and acceptable. But its been stripped down along side prejudice, reprimand, false accusations, hostility and insult. I am asking for help to bring the article to a level of compliance. Legitimate sources are there to support the facts we just gotta dig. Can Wikipedia assist me? We continue to stand our ground. The article has merit it is not a fabrication, the subject is a true life established original independent regional artist which qualifies for an article of notability coupled with historical/ career information, discography and credentials. Thank you - Betinfo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Betinfo (talk • contribs) 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Warning, also on Betinfo's usertalk. Please be civil and drop the personal accounts against
repeating yourself extensively. You've made your comment as to why you believe it should be kept, please allow others to weigh in. Star Mississippi 18:19, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

The warning is acknowledged, thank you. But will all due respect Mississippi, within the matter of "Please be civil..." your warning should also extend to Jeske Couriani He has been profane towards the article in question and myself, especially in his latest commentary. Thanks - betinfo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Betinfo (talk • contribs) 28 July 2021 (UTC)
I'm under no obligation to be nice to a user who only reads comments insofar as to find a
you haven't really even attempted to rebut the bulk of what I've said above. And the only reason I'm being repetitive is because you're bringing out the same old, tired Vaudevillian act that got gonged every other time you've trotted it out and is still going to get gonged because it's flat-out not a winner from a policy standpoint. Also, "limited knowledge of what is notable" is a hard argument to make given where I'm most active
.

Being "established" is not a criterion for notability as far as musicians go. See
you clearly have no interest in trying to bring it up to par
, else you would have by this point.

[T]he subject [has not] mentioned any promotional commentary in the article is, once again, a wholly wrong assumption that promotion on Wikipedia takes the form of "This guy is GREAT" or "Be a honey. Buy Buzz Soap." The overwhelming majority of promotion I see on a daily basis
being horriffically subpar
does not help.

But its been stripped down along side prejudice, reprimand, false accusations, hostility and insult. I notice that you aren't actually engaging with the salient points of the arguments myself or others have made,
instead resorting to ad hominem attacks and tilting at straw men
. And frankly, it hasn't been "stripped down"; if it were there'd be no unsourced claims remaining.

The article has merit it is not a fabrication, the subject is a true life established original independent regional artist[...] Whether or not the guy exists is completely irrelevant. This is an argument I see a lot, and the point is generally made to the person that existence is not an inclusion criterion. Notability is, and based upon what the people making delete arguments here are saying, that has not been met in any capacity thus far because the sourcing is bad.

Legitimate sources are there to support the facts we just gotta dig. Then start digging in libraries and archives.
Google returns literally nothing usable (string: "peter betan"). If there are any usable sources, they're in print media. The onus for sourcing lies with those who seek to retain/expand content, not the ones seeking to remove it. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 22:33, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment - I already voted above, but found another item of interest. My colleagues above have already shot down the denials of promotion and conflicts of interest. Mr. Betan (or his representative) has also said "The article has had and continues to have major visibility on the internet" and variations of the same several times. No it hasn't. See WP's page view stats: [12]. ~~From 2015 (the earliest data available) to 2018 the average daily page views were zero.~~ Data for this article before 2018 may be missing. There was a flurry of action in April 2018 related to some concerns from the Reviewing/Patrolling team. Between then and last week, the article averaged about two views per day. None of this is directly relevant to a deletion discussion, but Mr. Betan has made an exaggerated claim about viewership and used it as a reason to keep the article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 21:26, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLUDGEON
by now-blocked COI editor

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

INCORRECT INTERPRETATION OF STATEMENT BY CONTRIBUTOR OF ARTICLE "PETER BETAN" MADE BY "DOOMSDAYER"What was meant directly by "The article has had and continues to have major visibility on the internet"( which "doomsday" has overwhelmingly incorrectly interpreted) is when you search the subjects name (Peter Betan) in whichever search engine one uses, the wikipedia article "Peter Betan" is the first or second prominently visible link. My statement was NOT based on the amount of readers or stats regarding how many people actually read it or visited the article. Rather, the prominence or presence it has when you search the subjects name "Peter Betan". You sir... are wrong. betinfo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Betinfo (talk • contribs) 28 July 2021 (UTC)
That's a consequence of Google giving Wikipedia very disproportionate representation, and has nothing to do with this article specifically. And clearly it hasn't done much given those pageview metrics. And, once again, this argument's an admission that the intent of this page is advertizing. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 22:06, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And just because the WP article comes up ~~first~~ second in a Google search, that is not evidence that lots of people (or anyone at all) perform that search. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 23:14, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't even do that; it's second in the search results. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 23:17, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And even if anyone does perform that search, that is also not evidence that they do so because Betan is a
notable musician. That's what this argument is still about, despite Betinfo's diversions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 23:19, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete: Hardly any coverage in reliable sources, all I can find are passing mentions and even those are sparse. Throast (talk | contribs) 14:56, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Per rationale by doomsdayer520 and nom. Furthermore shouldn’t this have been snow deleted by now, no? Celestina007 (talk) 18:06, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Administrative note User:Betinfo has been blocked indefinitely for a variety of reasons including their behavior on this page. Users are reminded to remain civil in discussions. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 02:16, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. (Wow this page was an interesting read...) – Broccoli & Coffee ^{(Oh hai)} 03:23, 30 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. As one of the participants summed it up, "Fringe but notable fringe." RL0919 (talk) 21:13, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

George Vithoulkas

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/George Vithoulkas

Articles for deletion/George Vithoulkas (2nd nomination)

Articles for deletion/George Vithoulkas (3rd nomination)

Articles for deletion/George Vithoulkas (Second nomination)

George Vithoulkas (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:ANYBIO criteria, also fails all 8 of the specific notability criteria for academics. HIs works in Homeopathy are questionable, pretty much the only material published specifically about him is self-published (and therefore, not reliably sourced), and to refer to homeopathy as "medicine" is barely accurate. I assert as nominator, that the subject of this article, despite writing lots of books and being a professor, is not suitable material for Wikipedia. Dane|Geld 20:53, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Dane|Geld 20:53, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Dane|Geld 20:53, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Dane|Geld 20:53, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator Dane|Geld 20:59, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:11, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Fringe but notable fringe. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:32, 25 July 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Keep. I admit a complete conflict over this, because I personally consider homeopathy to be total clap-trap, and dangerous clap-trap too. But (1) homeopathy is very big business, and is a big influence on millions of people's lives and health. Its biggest figureheads and promoters are therefore notable, no matter how much I dislike what they do. Also (2) if the general public are going to search out information about people like Vithoulkas, it is best that they have WP's balanced view, and not just whatever promotional materials they find from homeopathic organisations. Elemimele (talk) 23:07, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the main argument here is
WP:IDONTLIKEIT by @DaneGeld: which is a very poor justification for the AfD. While I am also of the opinion that homeopathy is anti-scientific and doesnt work, this is not a good argument to delete the article. There is a whole biography written about him and he got the Right_Livelihood_Award (alternative Nobel prize). Whats next, delete Kary Mullis because people dont like his views? --hroest 17:07, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
The main argument here is that Vithoulkas does not satisfy any of the criteria for a biographical article and does not meet the requirements for biographies of those in academia. Nothing more. Dane|Geld 21:26, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is a full biographical book about him this book which is not self published (published by
WP:ANYBIO: 1. The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times. and 2. The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field.[8] which is covered by a somebody writing a whole book about him. Your nomination is clearly due to bias and not liking homeopathy, I appreciate that and can relate to the sentiment, but these are not suitable arguments for AfD. As pointed out above, it is much better to write the article objectively and write about his critics in the article than to simply delete the article. --hroest 16:13, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
@Hannes Röst: - "A well-known and significant award..."; Let's start with that. If I was to ask any person on the street if they'd heard of the Nobel prize, chances are almost everyone would know of it or about it. The "Right Living Award"? I'd defy you to find anyone on the street who knew what that was. I wouldn't call it a well known award, far from it. I'd agree with you that he passes number 2 though and will correct that. I'm leaving this up though. I'll let WP decide on it. Dane|Geld 08:06, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Elemimele. Furthermore, Vithoulkas is the person who introduced homeopathy to the Greek society, which is a notable accomplishment in its own right. ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 20:19, 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Stonkaments (talk) 20:25, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Robert E. W. Hancock

Robert E. W. Hancock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Subject is not notable—the article only cites Hancock's own papers for what he's most known for. The article is also extremely promotional ("considered a world leader in his field"), poorly sourced, poorly written, and was flagged for an apparent conflict of interest in 2018 that hasn't been meaningfully addressed. Stonkaments (talk) 20:43, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Stonkaments (talk) 20:43, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Stonkaments (talk) 20:43, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:53, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Obvious pass of
WP:DINC. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:25, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep absolutely no question. How on earth did he even get nominated? A named chair and the Order of British Columbia are probably quite sufficient on their own. Yup, the article has some promotional language in it, but it's hard not to look flashy when you've got a track record like his. Elemimele (talk) 23:14, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Obvious pass of multiple
talk) 23:36, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy keep. Notability is established in the very first sentence, at "Killam Professor". JoelleJay (talk) 00:25, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Easily passes NPROF, e.g. on NPROF-1 we have an h-index of 169 and nearly 115,000 citations. Fourteen separate works of his surpassed 1,000 citations.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 07:27, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, clearly a failure of
WP:BEFORE. --hroest 15:19, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep passes general notability guidelines. ––FORMALDUDE^(talk) 17:44, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes general notability guidelines. There are lots of refs present to support notability. Jaysonsands (talk) 08:50, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Per above, passes notability and
WP:NPROF. Alex-h (talk) 07:34, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep as per above. Given it's
WP:SNOWing, perhaps User:Stonkaments can retract the nomination. Nfitz (talk) 18:26, 29 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) Nytendoz (talk) 17:16, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Monster Jam Path of Destruction Tour

Monster Jam Path of Destruction Tour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
)

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

My main points of concern were raised last month on
Original research- As I also explained on the talk page, the 'Path of Destruction' name seemingly hasn't been used since the 2015 tour, so continuing to add results of events 2016-beyond is seemingly just original research at this point. If it's decided to keep (rather than delete) this article, then likely at least the information for those years should be removed. Magitroopa (talk) 18:06, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:55, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 00:58, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an
indiscriminate summary of the tours. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 01:01, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect to WP:BEFORE search shows that while Monster Jam is notable, it is primarily notable as an entertainment spectacle and not as a sporting event. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 13:08, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect to Monster Jam per above as lacks refs for a seprate page. Jaysonsands (talk) 08:46, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to
talk page 18:24, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect to
WP:RS arises, a delete and redirect is the most appropriate option here. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 02:22, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was keep. Has been renamed. Geschichte (talk) 18:35, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Local Valley (album)

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

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

reliable source media outlets. As always, albums are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because primary sources can be found to verify that they exist -- the notability test requires external validation of significance through media coverage, not just verification of existence through any web page that can be found. No prejudice against recreation after it's released, if album reviews or notable music awards materialize, but nothing here is already sufficient or well-sourced enough to already warrant an article now. Bearcat (talk) 17:38, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:38, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:38, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per
WP:NALBUMS. The issues brought up have been remedied, as I have added citations to published works unrelated to Jose Gonzalez, Mute, or City Slang mentioning the album and the related singles including (but not limited to) pitchfork.com, nme.com, and thefader.com. Cliferton (talk) 21:02, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:34, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per above, article is improved and other issues are addresses. It passes
WP:NALBUMS. Frigidpolarbear (talk) 13:37, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment: definitely too soon, but at the very worst this should be draftified – the album is by a major artist and will certainly be reviewed in major publications and will likely chart in multiple countries, so this will just be recreated in a few weeks' time if deleted. Also the title should be changed to Local Valley, there is no need for the disambiguation. Richard3120 (talk) 18:26, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to simply Local Valley. Meets
WP:FUTUREALBUM with sources added to the article by Cliferton. They're reliable enough IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 03:55, 31 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) 18:34, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hafizi-Isma'ili family tree

Hafizi-Isma'ili family tree (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This "article" is an indiscriminate collection of names that lacks both citations and text. Honestly, this is one of the worst articles that I have ever seen. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 17:03, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, but it could be useful to re-use the non mythological part of the article on a related article. Sadenar40000 (talk) 17:09, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 17:03, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 17:03, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom. Mosesheron (talk) 17:18, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unsourced INDISCRIMINATE data and a CFORK. I saw some discussion of this on Discord. The article is, certainly, very bad. It is not really an article; it is a table of unsourced data. And it is a
WP:SYNTH of various ancestries, some historical and some mythical. Some of this is also a duplicate of Family tree of Muhammad. There is nothing worth saving and the title isn't a good redirect candidate. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 17:42, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete This is either a poor synthesis or an editor's personal database; I'm not sure which. It reads more like someone's notes for a world religions class than an encyclopedic entry, and I don't see any way for this to be salvaged or otherwise used. MezzoMezzo (talk) 23:47, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom, there are not enough sources available to qualify for GNG. Jaysonsands (talk) 08:48, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. –♠Vami _IV†♠ 10:52, 30 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:28, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Brendan Óg Duffy

Brendan Óg Duffy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Young amateur sportsperson whose notability stems from single event (subject's unfortunate/untimely death). Specifically, in terms of:

WP:NGAELIC - footballers who played at underage levels (even inter-county underage competitions) do not meet the "senior inter-county level in Championship" criteria. Subject did not play in National League
.

significant coverage of subject in news/other sources prior to death
.

WP:NOTMEMORIAL would also seem to apply. Guliolopez (talk) 16:57, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 20:07, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 20:08, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, will be lack of sustained coverage. Did nothing notable. Geschichte (talk) 08:10, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, Underage and also
WP:NOTMEMORIAL applies. Spleodrach (talk) 07:42, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Very sad indeed, but Wikipedia is
not a memorial website. Incidentally, the Belfast Telegraph covering the death of a Monaghan GAA player is a positive sign of the times. Fiachra10003 (talk) 02:11, 31 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) 18:33, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Valley Girl Syndrome (VGS)

Valley Girl Syndrome (VGS) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This is an unsourced, very non-neutral semi-rant that was nominated for speedy deletion under criterion A7 shortly after creation in 2008, however that criterion does not apply and it was redirected to
Valley Girl Syndrome - and the history of the latter already contains something very similar (and equally unsourced and POV) to this so absolutely nothing will be lost. Thryduulf (talk) 16:50, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 16:54, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 16:54, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources have been provided. This article is more of a criticism of unspecified Americans who are unaware of current events than a proper encyclopedia article. To the extent that such a thing as "Valley Girl syndrome" is discussed online, it appears to be more used as a description of high rising terminal or "uptalk", that is, the practice of speaking declarative sentences to sound like questions -- which has nothing to do with this article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:53, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Second this. No sources, the content is so vague it basically doesn't say anything relevant/notable, and if, or some incomprehensible reason, we did intend to keep this, we would need a disambiguation page so this low-value rant doesn't get linked in linguistics-related articles. Before I edited it, it was wrongly categorized as linguistics-related because of confusion with "uptalk"(!) Quanstizium (talk) 17:03, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete I think
WP:G3 applies. As Metropolitan90 noted, even if we took it for granted that there is such a thing as "Valley Girl Syndrome", it clearly doesn't refer to what the article purports it to be, so it's a blatant hoax. Either way there's hardly a point in keeping this unreferenced soapbox rant that has a snowball's chance in hell of becoming serviceable encyclopedic content. Nardog (talk) 00:33, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
I don't think G3 does apply. Hoaxes must be intended to deceive, but I think the author here was intending to honestly inform the world about something they call(ed) "Valley Girl Syndrome" - there is a difference between being wrong and being a hoax. Thryduulf (talk) 01:19, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Even if the intention was to inform the world about a thing, I really, really doubt the author genuinely believed that thing was called "Valley Girl Syndrome" by any person but them. And yet the article is written as though it is, in which I find intention to deceive. Nardog (talk) 01:34, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I completely disagree. Their comment at Talk:Valley Girl Syndrome makes it clear that they intended this to be an encyclopaedia entry about a phenomenon they have observed. The complete failure of NPOV and verifiability does not make it a hoax - why would someone who clearly wants the world to know about a thing intentionally use a name for it they know was incorrect? That the same term can refer to high rising terminal is coincidental. Thryduulf (talk) 01:55, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're taking AGF to an unwarranted degree there... wouldn't that mean anyone could create a hoax and avoid SD just by insisting that it's genuine? But ultimately that's neither here nor there as I'm down with what you're proposing.

It's curious you linked to Talk:Valley Girl Syndrome. Shouldn't Valley Girl Syndrome also be nominated? Nardog (talk) 02:38, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Valley Girl Syndrome is already a redirect to Valley girl, so the arguments for deleting this page are different from the argument for deleting that redirect. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:29, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
So was Valley Girl Syndrome (VGS) until yesterday. Nardog (talk) 04:31, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@
Valley Girl Syndrome to determine whether I think it should be kept, retargetted or deleted and take the appropriate action (my gut feeling at the minute, without having done a detailed examination, is that it might make a good redirect to high rising terminal). There is article content in the history of that redirect (as noted) but it is so similar to the content of this article that the consensus of this discussion will be applicable to that too.
Regarding hoaxes, if there is any doubt about whether a page meets a speedy deletion criterion it does not meet it, the criterion for hoaxes is that they be "blatant and obvious misinformation" a standard that is very clearly not met here. Thryduulf (talk) 11:28, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete: malformed title, topic is already covered at
Valley Girl Syndrome redirects. PamD 20:58, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy delete {{
a11}}, based on the user's edits it feels like something someone made up one day.Citing (talk) 01:13, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy delete Absolutely agree with Nardog and Citing on this one. This is G3 vandalism. Just an edgelord who was born in "le wrong generation". (Oh, memories of high school...) Bkissin (talk) 19:56, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unsourced polemical screed--and even more the point with regard to policy, original thought of the user. Certainly a
WP:SNOW call, and I think I find even the G3 speedy delete rationals argued above more compelling than not. Salting may even be a cost-benefit positive here. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 02:14, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete The title is not a plausible search term as noted above so it would not make for a useful redirect. I'm inclined to agree with the
WP:Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. That's basically what the editors above are already saying, even if they're phrasing it differently. TompaDompa (talk) 14:54, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was Procedural close. Article was speedy deleted per G7 by Fastily.
talk 22:28, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Prasenjit Dutta

Prasenjit Dutta (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 a pass of
WP:NCHESS. nearlyevil 665 16:46, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil 665 16:46, 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 keep.
(non-admin closure) Nytendoz (talk) 17:28, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Henri Schoeman (judoka)

Henri Schoeman (judoka) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

I couldn't find the coverage to show GNG, and there are no specific guidelines about judoka that I could find. I couldn't establish that he meets NOTE. Boleyn (talk) 16:32, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, 5th at World Championships is a flying pass of
WP:SPORTCRIT - which is the specific guideline to be looking for. Geschichte (talk) 16:44, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:57, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:59, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:36, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Schoeman meets
WP:GNG. gidonb (talk) 12:51, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep I added details and sources from the International Judo Federation about his performance at the 2005 world championshipsto the article. While I don't think that everyone who competes at a major tournament is necessarily notable, finishing fifth at the world championships is sufficient for me. Papaursa (talk) 23:34, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Passes
WP:SPORTCRIT with several supporting refs and sources. Frigidpolarbear (talk) 14:05, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep, as participating in World Championships is enough to pass
WP:SPORTCRIT Jackattack1597 (talk) 12:04, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was keep. Geschichte (talk) 18:31, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gorat's

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

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

All the assertion of notability seems to be is that a notable person likes it. HOw does it meet notability? Boleyn (talk) 16:02, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:07, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:07, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:07, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – for better or for worse, the restaurant has received substantial coverage in reliable sources: see 1, 2, 3, and 4. Not all of these focus on Buffett, and in any event it isn't really relevant why something has been covered by reliable sources as long as coverage exists. There's enough sourcing to meet the
WP:NCORP, and that's good enough for me. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:10, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Per above, there are several good sources to give it a pass for GNG. Slovenichibo (talk) 08:51, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as there are plenty of sources specifically about the restaurant. The picture on the article looks massively unappealing so I feel notability is undeserved, but its there. BuySomeApples (talk) 04:57, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as there are enough sources for GNG.Jackattack1597 (talk) 12:02, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. RL0919 (talk) 15:50, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Frogfoot (South Africa)

Frogfoot (South Africa) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
)

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

It exists, but doesn't even assert why it is notable. Sources I could find didn't show it either. Boleyn (talk) 15:46, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:51, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:51, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think that this article is pretty important, under the fact that they are the 3rd biggest fiber infrastructure provider to consumers in South Africa. The notability is not great, but most notable sources are well know locally including MyBroadband, IOL and respective ISPs. TapticInfo (talk) 19:17, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, featured in local well known press in South Africa News24,IOL, mybroadband, George Herald, this suggests the article is of importance. Plenty other reliable sources can be found through a
WP:BEFORE. -Xclusivzik (talk) 20:43, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

'Keep Per above, There are good number of refs present to qualify for GNG. Jaysonsands (talk) 08:57, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per nom. the refs satisfy the rules of wikipedia --Rupertdonovan (talk) 00:19, 28 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
Barcel as suggested by the nom, since there was no objection or other comment. RL0919 (talk) 16:10, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Bocadin

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

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

Is this notable enough for a standalone article? Possible ATD would be redirect to Barcel. Boleyn (talk) 15:25, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:49, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:50, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:50, 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. ✗plicit 14:53, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anime Pulse

Anime Pulse (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 pass
WP:WEBCRIT because the podcast has won a single award. However, WEBCRIT also says that "These criteria are presented as rules of thumb for easily identifying web content about which Wikipedia should probably have an article. In almost all cases, a thorough search for independent, third-party reliable sources will be successful for content meeting one or both of these criteria. However, meeting these criteria is not a guarantee that Wikipedia will host a separate, stand-alone article on the website." I don't think the subject deserves a stand-alone article because it clearly does not meet notability guidelines. The discussion on the talk page places a lot of weight on the other awards that the podcast has been nominated for, but WEBCRIT explicitly says that it would have to actually win for it to count toward notability. TipsyElephant (talk) 14:52, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 14:52, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 14:52, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 14:52, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 14:52, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 14:52, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Even if they won an award, there is absolutely no coverage of the podcast I could find. Jumpytoo Talk 22:11, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nom's attempt to find independent sourcing here seems to have been sufficiently genuine and broad enough that we can safely say that, for the moment, all that exists to support the notability argument is the award, which can truly be utilized to establish notability standing alone: the purpose of SNGs is to provide insight on where we should exercise the benefit of caution when deciding how much weight to give a limited number of existing reliable sources, or to postpone procedural deletions on the presumption that sourcing is just difficult to find or in active development. But SNGs cannot completely obviate the need for independent, in depth coverage in reliable sources as required under GNG and other relevant policies: at the end of the day one still needs to prove the existence of this coverage (and at a certain degree of weight) in order to satisfy the notability burden: the front line SNG standards can only slightly nuance this reading where sources exist, and even then it is not appropriate to wait forever for such speculative RS to manifest. Here, the nom's work (and for what it's worth, the thimble's full of independent research I did as well) have suggested nothing is out there to change the notability assessment at this time, and the arguments that pending industry awards might change that dips too much into
WP:CRYSTAL. Delete for the present time, pending the possibility of future sourcing. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 02:35, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was keep.
(non-admin closure) Nytendoz (talk) 17:26, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Nine Zero

Nine Zero (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 may be missing something due to cultural/linguistic differences, but I couldn't establish notability. It has been in
CAT:NN's backlog for 12 years - hopefully we can now resolve it. Boleyn (talk) 14:38, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:47, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:47, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or Merge to the existing main article of the related political party
Muttahida Qaumi Movement - Pakistan is already a fairly good size article with 14 references. Ngrewal1 (talk) 23:26, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep as per
talk) 15:22, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep, appears to be an important building where significant events have occurred.
talk) 17:19, 28 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. RL0919 (talk) 15:52, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Music City Mystique

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Music City Mystique

Articles for deletion/Music City Mystique (2nd nomination)

Articles for deletion/Music City Mystique (3rd nomination)

Music City Mystique (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 meet WP:NOTABILITY, it doesn't have close to the coverage or significance. Deleted at 1st AfD due to copyvio. 2nd AfD - closed due to lack of participation. This has been in
CAT:NN's backlog for 12 years - hopefully it can now be solved one way or the other. Boleyn (talk) 14:34, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:46, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:46, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, significantly improved since the last AfD and now have several sources.
talk) 17:55, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep, I can see multiple news articles about them, and given they've won multiple world championships that would likely qualify them under criteria 9 for bands on Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Criteria for musicians and ensembles. It should certainly be improved in terms of formatting but I don't think that has anything to do with Notability Contrawwftw (talk) 05:20, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Passes GNG with multiple news articles available at present. Zackdasnicker (talk) 09:44, 30 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 14:17, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Night Wind

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

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

Semi-advertorialized article about a band, not
WP:PRIMARYTOPIC rights for the undisambiguated title and should be moved to it following deletion — and even if somebody with stronger Uzbek language skills than I've got can actually find the quality of sourcing needed to salvage the band, the band would still need to be moved to "Night Wind (band)" so that the film could get the plain title.) Bearcat (talk) 14:16, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:16, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uzbekistan-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:16, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find any coverage in reliable sources. They don't seem to satisfy any NMUSIC criteria that would indicate notability. Throast (talk | contribs) 14:50, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article does at least have one independent source in the form of an interview for a fan website that probably does not qualify as a media institution or an
WP:RS--which is still actually quite a bit more than many articles of this sort (that is, articles for probably non-notable bands that end up AfD) usually have going for them, but still far less than is required to meet the general notability burden. Unless further sourcing establishing notability is forthcoming, deleting seems the appropriate outcome here. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 02:47, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on
"soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 08:09, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Shakti Pratap Singh Rathore

Shakti Pratap Singh Rathore (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 GNG and doesn't appear to pass
^(talk) 13:42, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
^(talk) 13:42, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
^(talk) 13:42, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete A politician who is not in office yet. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 08:05, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:55, 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. Willing to draftify upon request. Daniel (talk) 08:14, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Max Brewer

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

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

Possible
WP:NRU whilst only playing in the academy. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:54, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:54, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:54, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:54, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify/delete Certainly fails
WP:NRU. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 20:01, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Not played notable matches, he may or may not in future.Skeene88 (talk) 17:02, 29 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) 08:13, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Negatives (1988 film)

Negatives (1988 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)

An unfinished film. Can't find any significant coverage. Nardog (talk) 12:39, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Nardog (talk) 12:39, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and
WP:NFF. This is apparently an incomplete, abandoned film without sufficient coverage in reliable sources to justify an article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:01, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - can't find anything to suggest that this meets any Wikipedia guideline. The best that I could find was a passing mention here in Film Threat Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:36, 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn by nominator, with no other editors arguing for the article to be deleted or redirected.
(non-admin closure) Haleth (talk) 07:52, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

List of Warriors characters

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/List of Warriors characters

Articles for deletion/List of Warriors characters (2nd nomination)

List of Warriors characters (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 independent, reliable sources cited, or to be found elsewhere. The series itself is certainly notable, but this article on a lot of characters, none of whom meet the~~
~~WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information or a fansite. The article has not been improved substantially since the last time it was nominated.~~ Ganesha811 (talk) 12:31, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Withdrawn by nominator per discussion below - current policy appears to support keep. Ganesha811 (talk) 14:56, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Ganesha811 (talk) 12:31, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Ganesha811 (talk) 12:31, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Ganesha811 (talk) 12:31, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:55, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Series is notable, list of characters is too long to fit in series article per
WP:NEXIST. Overall, the nomination is highly problematic, in that I don't understand what policy-based defect the nominator is asking that we resolve by deletion. Jclemens (talk) 00:12, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Oh, and why doesn't it seem too excessive? Look at the changes since the last AfD was closed 4.5 months ago. (9 to 4 keep, was closed as "no consensus" in an apparent supervote) Jclemens (talk) 00:36, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Jclemens, I'm aware that the article was significantly shortened since the last AfD, but I don't think the changes have enhanced the article's claim to notability. I searched for a specific policy on lists of fictional characters, but couldn't find one. Is there a relevant specific policy? I definitely might have missed something. If not, I would argue that the series being notable (which I agree it is) does not make a list of characters notable. *None* of the characters appear to be non-trivially discussed in reliable, independent source, either individually or as a group. Ganesha811 (talk) 02:20, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Look at
WP:POKEMON, in that the de facto preferred way to represent large numbers of marginally-to-non-notable verifiable fictional elements is in such a list. Jclemens (talk) 03:06, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
WP:SYNTH to make judgements about which are important enough to make the cut. The better solution is to simply say that as none of the characters seem to be even close to independently notable and their inclusion on the main article's page is not necessary, we can lose the character list altogether. I can see your case, but I lean on the side of deletionism where it is so easy for these pages to rapidly get out of hand because fandom is involved, as this page previously did. Ganesha811 (talk) 18:11, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Let me get this straight... you want to delete an entire page because it might get out of hand? Leaving aside the
WP:CSC where the lack of notability criteria is explicitly listed as a policy-based reason to aggregate such elements into a list. Jclemens (talk) 01:54, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
WP:CSC argument is much more persuasive, and makes me wonder if I ultimately think the policy is the issue and not this article specifically, upon learning more via your links. In which case I might withdraw this nomination and think about an appropriate forum to discuss the policy. Ganesha811 (talk) 04:06, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep The article is well-sourced, and serves as a good reference for those who may be reading the main articles on Warriors and want to find further information on it. The article has been trimmed to such a point that it does not contain information that is not important to the series. Perhaps even more characters could be removed from the article, and only the most important characters left, if the article is not notable enough to be of a larger size. Blubewwy (talk) 16:26, 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. Daniel (talk) 08:13, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anjaam (2022 film)

Anjaam (2022 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)

Possible hoax? Despite having an all-star cast and all-star music producers, I can't find a single source about this film. Fails
WP:NFF as far as I can see. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:06, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:06, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:06, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not sure it's an intentional hoax, as the imdb link points to a different 2022 film, with many of the same credits. Regardless of that, does not meet
WP:NFILM. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:28, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy delete: per nom. Kolma8 (talk) 18:35, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails
WP:NFILMS Nitesh003 (talk) 13:27, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as it fails NFILMS.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 08:03, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails the notability for films and, it you want to create the article, do it shortly before the movie is released (toosoon)71.10.180.173 (talk) 14:37, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing
talk page 20:51, 30 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) 08:13, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fábio Rodrigues de Moura

Fábio Rodrigues de Moura (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 doesn't pass
Dimmi!!! 11:25, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:25, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:25, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sign of citations for
WP:TOOSOON for this 2016 PhD. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 19:01, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

~~Keep procedural~~: It seems nothing was done
WP:BEFORE bringing this to AfD, which is a violation of the very strong guideline to consider alternatives first. Not even a PROD seems to have been attempted. The delete argument made by Russ above is not good enough: Not meeting C1 does not mean NACADEMIC is not met. We can't delete based on lack of citations alone. Other things needs to be taken into account. The article does have a lot of references. Dr. Universe (talk) 19:59, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
A PROD is not required before an AfD, and indeed is not an alternative to deletion. What notability criterion do you think the subject meets? Russ Woodroofe (talk) 21:13, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of
WP:PROF#C1 or any other notability criterion. There is no procedural problem with the nomination; "consider alternatives" means to think about whether it is possible to save the article, not to go through other procedures first. Having thought about whether it is possible to save this article, my opinion is: probably not. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:30, 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) 08:12, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2021 Spielberg Formula Regional European Championship round

2021 Spielberg Formula Regional European Championship round (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Minor event which is not due to take place for over a month. Obvious case of
WP:GNG eligibility would be questionable even if that weren't the case. Articles about Formula One Grands Prix generally aren't created until one to three days before the race. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 10:37, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 10:37, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because of the exact same reasons:

2021 Mugello Formula Regional European Championship round (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

2021 Monza Formula Regional European Championship round (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 10:42, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:01, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:01, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:01, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all, none pass GNG. I genuinely fail to see how FREC races are notable enough for individual articles anyway, previous race reports for the series are simply results tables with only primary sources to support their meagre prose.
5225_C (talk • contributions) 11:50, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with the general sentiment here. Only bundled the future dates since the reasoning for deleting them is identical. Generally with these lower level series an individual round will only be notable if exceptional circumstances lead to substantially increased coverage from sources; such as that European Formula Three round at Monza a few years ago with the kerfuffle over driving standards leading to the last race getting called off. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 12:20, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't understand why the FREC races would even be notable enough to have it's own separate article unless other extreme cases which this is not one of. HawkAussie (talk) 06:48, 30 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) 08:12, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sandeep Nanduri

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

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

A non notable civil servant. Article fails GNG.
talk) 09:35, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 09:35, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 09:35, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete He has taken good initiatives but the coverages are not in-depth to establish notability. We can't have civil servants become notable for simply doing a little more than the job they should do because it's their job! Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 02:27, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: I do respect your statement here. But, as per the rules, if a subject meets
WP:SIGCOV, it is possible to create an article. Nakshathra Nair (talk) 04:56, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep : Sandeep Nanduri is a very famous civil servant in Tamil Nadu. There are lots of articles about him on internet. Please do a
WP:Before prior nominating an article for AFD. See Ritz Magazine, Indian Masterminds, First post, The Hindu, The news minute, Business Standard and many more. If you want to know more just see this. Nakshathra Nair (talk) 05:03, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete: Fails to meet
WP:NOTNEWS, as the articles simply report the news. Couple of articles talk about him changing career paths, and his wife. Changing career paths is probably done by everyone at some point of their lives. -- DaxServer (talk) 07:27, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete: Per nom Fails to meet
WP:GNG, lacks significant coverage. Frigidpolarbear (talk) 14:06, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete: While many of the sources are reliable, they broadly fall under
significant coverage about the subject. -- Ab207 (talk) 07:15, 30 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. Stifle (talk) 11:07, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Amour d'Enfants

Amour d'Enfants (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 22:36, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

Delete Fails
WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 12:24, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

I don't think this film lacks significant coverage. See this clip from Lebanese Broadcasting Corporation International for example – I just think this needs someone who speaks Arabic. /Julle (talk) 09:23, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:50, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Julle. Film stars a well-known Lebanese personality, Elie Mitri. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 00:08, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Again, please review
WP:NINI, notability is not inherited. This is not a valid argument for keeping. BOVINEBOY2008 21:48, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ambrosiawater (talk) 08:10, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Clips don't establish anything.--Filmomusico (talk) 02:52, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:43, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kanupriya

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

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

A non-notable biography with no sources establishing or providing any evidence of notability of the person's career. The only sources that are used are reports of the person's death from Coronavirus. All of which just list what she did for her career in the same format the way the article is written. And the only thing I can find about this person is just reports of her death. This article clearly fails GNG as nothing is emphasized as to what made her notable to begin with. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 18:10, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:43, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:43, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:43, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A classic case of one event semi-notability (1E). Her death by COVID is what seems to have triggered the creation of the article and all refs provided cover only that one event, which doesn't make the subject notable. All acting credits listed are unsourced and there is no in-depth coverage regarding the subject herself. Majorly fails GNG.
Sunshine1191 (talk) 11:33, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:51, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ambrosiawater (talk) 08:10, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The article depends on the sources which are just covering her death by COVID. Hence, Fully agree with @
Sunshine1191:. - Iamrajdeepdas (talk) 08:23, 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. ✗plicit 13:46, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

University of the East Ramon Magsaysay Memorial Medical Center

University of the East Ramon Magsaysay Memorial Medical Center (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 This is a campus, not an university. The Banner talk 16:53, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:57, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:57, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:51, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ambrosiawater (talk) 08:10, 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. Insufficient references presented about the film itself, and notability not inherited. Stifle (talk) 11:08, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Red Rover (film)

Red Rover (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)

Completely unsourced article about a film with no discernible claim to passing
reliably sourced evidence of significance, such as notable film awards and/or reviews from established and reputable film critics, to qualify for a Wikipedia article, and just having an entry on IMDb or Rotten Tomatoes is not automatically enough in and of itself -- but existence is the only notability claim on display here, IMDb and Rotten Tomatoes are the only "sources", and I can't find any other sourcing on either Google or ProQuest to salvage it with. (Note that this is not the Shane Belcourt film from 2018, it's a thing from 2003 directed by Marc S. Grenier, so don't get led astray by the sources that do exist for the Belcourt film.) Bearcat (talk) 23:57, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 23:57, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 23:57, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Found a review at CineMagazine [[13]]. Not enough on its own, but its a start. Donaldd23 (talk) 00:21, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:57, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per review indicated by Donaldd23 and the three external links indicated in the article. Film stars three well-known actors who have extensive Wikipedia coverage. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 23:58, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A reminder that notability is not inherited. We need more than well known actors starring. Paragon Deku (talk) 05:55, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn’t appear to be a particularly notable film in its own right and sourcing seems too scant to prove notability. Paragon Deku (talk) 05:55, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ambrosiawater (talk) 08:09, 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. Although a Keep supporter provided some sources, the consensus from the discussion was that these do not provide the
significant coverage needed to establish notability. RL0919 (talk) 16:01, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Ahmad Ahmadzadeh

Ahmad Ahmadzadeh (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 in-depth coverage to meet
WP:NSCHOLAR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:17, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:17, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:32, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Was notable in the pre-internet era. He is described in the encyclopedia "Qazax mahalının alimləri". Some sources can be found online in native language: axar.az, aztehsil.com, bakuexo.az, apress.az, axar.az, Mia.az, azadliq.org. SportsOlympic (talk) 17:49, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

delete clearly fails
WP:GNG, two sources in the article describe how the subject was fired (possibly describing a different Ahmad Ahmadzadeh that was head of a water company and not a medical professor?) and one how it died without any further detail. Overall it seems the article is poorly sourced, with little source material and no indication of notability. --hroest 03:15, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep, thanks to SpotsOlympic and the sources they've linked to above
talk) 21:39, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:55, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Per rationale by both
WP:PROF. Celestina007 (talk) 00:08, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Weak delete. The first source linked seems like a press release. The claim about being in an encyclopedia is not verifiable. Please provide an analysis of the links cited - which are SIGCOV and reliable? And proof that he has an entry in the encyclopedia. Ping me if this is done and I'll reconsider my vote. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:43, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ambrosiawater (talk) 08:09, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 22:40, 28 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 move to Biodynamics. Nothing prevents anyone from taking further editorial decisions such as moves or edits. Stifle (talk) 11:10, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Biodynamic

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

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

3
WP:PTM's, one of which does not even mention this word. Deprodded without explanation or improvement. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 15:09, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 15:09, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 15:09, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are two main groups of topics for this – those associated with Steiner's idea of biodynamic agriculture – and those associated with the dynamics of biological systems. The latter is poorly served currently so there is much scope for expansion and so
WP:ATD applies, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." See Biodynamics for a book on the subject. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:33, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep per above comment. I also just added/removed entries on the page. WaddlesJP13 (talk | contributions) 20:05, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Biodynamics - that should be the disambiguation, rather than redirecting to Biodynamic agriculture; this should be a redirect to that disambiguation. (Also obligatory facepalm for Andrew reliably and completey missing the point in favour of spouting the usual rote phrases.) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 23:29, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Move per Elmidae; "Biodynamic" is a partial title match while "Biodynamics" is a plausible alternate title. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 19:21, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ambrosiawater (talk) 08:09, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Biodynamics as the most-general term. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 03:39, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete to facilitate uninhibited Search. Biodynamics is fine as it is: the term is not ambiguous because Biodynamic massage isn't known as "Biodynamics". Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:50, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on
"soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 08:12, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Ali Surathal

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

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

Non notable film, appears to fail
WP:BEFORE except film database sites, videos, and promo material. Donaldd23 (talk) 13:16, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 13:16, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 13:16, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ambrosiawater (talk) 08:07, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails to satisfy the requirements of
WP:NFILM. Dan arndt (talk) 02:08, 31 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 13:48, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2016 PSIS Semarang season

2016 PSIS Semarang season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

A
WP:GNG concern. Firstly, I don't see that PSIS' season was covered in depth in any way. Secondly, I am not seeing any significant coverage of this particular level of Indonesian football to justify having separate season articles for all of its participating teams. Coverage is rarely better than this stats page or this blog entry. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:21, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:21, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:21, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:25, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails
WP:NSEASONS. Giant Snowman 14:22, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:48, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ambrosiawater (talk) 08:07, 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 keep. Daniel (talk) 08:11, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Signs of the Swarm

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Signs of the Swarm

Articles for deletion/Signs of the Swarm (2nd nomination)

Signs of the Swarm (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

A7 — non notable band. Still doesn't seem to stack up to the standards for notability despite this was already attempted before to get created before (and ended up getting deleted). Not much except for press from Unique Leader (a label who doesnt even have a article on the site) is mostly what comes up when googling the band's name. The only noteworthy thing about the group is that their music video for the first track on the second album gained a couple million views on YouTube's Slam Worldwide channel, but I still can't find evidence that either of their three albums ever even charted. Probably will never be notable in the future anyway because everyone is started to care a lot less for this band ever since their original vocalist left. Second Skin (talk) 08:07, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the AfD from the first time it got deleted. Nothing has ever changed since in terms of notability since. Second Skin (talk) 08:08, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:51, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:51, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe things will change when their upcoming album comes out, just sayin'....SirZPthundergod9001 (talk) 10:01, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've added several sources to this article and now believe it passes
talk) 22:44, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment The previous deletion discussion had only one participant other than the nominator and was closed after two days. It certainly should not be used to establish consensus.
talk) 22:46, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep as well as coverage in Dead Press, Decibel Magazine and Punk News added to the article they also have an AllMusic staff written bio here. All in all there is enough coverage for a pass of
WP:GNG so deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:43, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep 10 references to relatively widely used metal publications should be more than enough to demonstrate notability.BuySomeApples (talk) 05:01, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Camel (band). Daniel (talk) 08:11, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mirage (British band)

Mirage (British band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

I can't find any significant coverage of this band in RS Pipsally (talk) 07:41, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:48, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:48, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep or merge into Camel: the article is patchy and could do with some clean-up. There's a mix of references. Grimsby Telegraph and MTV News are reliable. There's some primary sourcing that may be appropriate to use, but doesn't demonstrate notability. There's stuff like Expose Online, which is a reliable source within progressive rock music journalism. If the AfD decision is to delete, there is material here that could be moved to Camel (band). Bondegezou (talk) 09:01, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:14, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 07:40, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge selectively into Camel (band) - This is an odd story within the history of Camel, but as an entity in its own right, Mirage accomplished nothing except a couple of unnoticed live albums. However, the story of a shyster trying to set up a fraudulent Camel reunion, then calling it something else and leaving legal devastation in his wake, is relevant to Camel's history. It can be described at their article, but it is unnecessary to go into so much detail. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:54, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While the above is all fair comment, I got to the page by looking for Caravan-related music on YouTube, coming across their released album and wanting to know who they were, and finding the link from Mirage (disambiguation). The history of the Canterbury scene is littered with various collections of the same musicians operating under different names in different years, and keeping track of them all is virtually impossible; one continually finds obscure references to short-lived groupings one's not heard of, and one wants to know a bit more. Whatever the eventual fate of this page, it's important to make it simple to locate the information, ie it would have to be in a paragraph specifically linked to by the disambiguation page at least. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MichaelHolmans (talk • contribs) 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Just note that for Wikipedia's purposes, all of that information still needs to be
reliable sources, and not just fan trivia. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:30, 27 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. Nothing in this closure acts to prevent anyone taking normal editorial actions with respect to the page, including but not limiting to merging. Stifle (talk) 11:12, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cat In A Flat

Cat In A Flat (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 fails GNG Impeeriumalo (talk) 07:11, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Impeeriumalo (talk) 07:11, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected
spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp
|username}}.

Keep Reliable sources are present like [14] and [15] to support notability. Slovenichibo (talk) 07:33, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Several good references from reliable sources including BBC News. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:24, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : only 2 refs to newspapers doesn't make it notable. And :
Wikipedia is not a means of promotion !! -- BhagyaMani (talk) 07:24, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Per Slovenichibo and Eastmain there are good reliable sources present to qualify for GNG. Although, page can be improved further to fix other issues. Jaysonsands (talk) 08:55, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, articles in BBC News and Huffington Post establish notability.
talk) 22:24, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete , possibly speedy delete as G11, advertising. the purported references are human(or should I say cat) interest publicity, no matter where published--and the Huffington Post is worthless for notability . They're based entiely on uncfitical interviews with the founder, and that's not a RS. DGG ( talk ) 01:30, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes notability bar. Although agree with above, article had some issues which I have fixed through cleanup and also added some more reliable sources to support notability. Frigidpolarbear (talk) 13:59, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The sentences + refs to more newspaper articles that you added are pure advertisement for this business, but they do not increase notability of this page. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 05:53, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As per I can see winning the BIMA Award and some suporting refs like NatGeo, and 2 german refs were added by Frigidpolarbear which doesn't seem promotional and were some improvements to the page. Slovenichibo (talk) 09:06, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Refs ONLY to newspapers do NOT make an entry to Wikipedia notable, the more so as none of these newspapers demonstrate that this business model has a significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education, see
WP:ORGSIG + primary criteria for notability there. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 09:32, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Where in
talk) 09:38, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Again, see
WP:ORGSIG + primary criteria for notability there. Impeeriumalo is right when stating that this page fails GNG criteria. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 11:52, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
The BBC News source alone demonstrates the positive impacts the website has had for catsitters. There is a wide range of sources available here and combined I believe this passes GNG.
talk) 17:50, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Fails
WP:NCORP. There does not appear to be any significant secondary coverage in reliable sources; a couple of refs are exclusively quotes from/interviews with the founder(s) and the rest are either passing mentions or not independent/promotional materials. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 13:15, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment WP:NCORP requires at least two of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information on the company to count towards establishing notability. And here the subject has multiple coverage in reliable sources. I have also attached source table below for more clear views. Slovenichibo (talk) 14:25, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table: prepared by User:Slovenichibo

Source
Independent?
Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward
GNG
?

BBC ✔ Yes

Huffingtonpost ✔ Yes

TheDrum Mentions for winning BIMA Award ? Unknown

Der Tagesspiegel ✔ Yes

t3n ? Unknown

Sifted ? Unknown

Nationalgeographic ? Unknown

This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Ok so let's analyse these sources properly...

BBC: Interview with a couple of cat-sitters. The company is barely mentioned and not actually relevant to this local fluff piece; it's really not coverage of the company at all.

Huffpost: A couple of paragraphs but it's nothing more than a description (nothing "in detail") and a couple of quotes from one of the owners. Neither significant nor secondary coverage and a borderline advert for their crowdfunding effort.

TheDrum: Passing mention in a list of winners. This is not significant coverage.

Der Tagesspiegel: A couple of paragraphs but nothing more than a brief description (nothing "in detail") and a quote from one of the owners. Neither significant nor secondary coverage.

t3n: Nothing more than a description (nothing "in detail") and a quote from one of the owners in relation to startups. Neither significant nor secondary coverage.

Sifted: Quotes from an interview with the founder in relation to startups (again, no detailed info on the company). Neither significant nor secondary coverage.

NatGeo: Total coverage is two sentences that provide nothing more than a very brief description (nothing "in detail"). Again, this is neither significant nor secondary coverage.

All in, there is nothing that comes close to passing NCORP or even GNG. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 15:17, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
These couple of paragraphs are making a story that is considered as in-depth coverage. HuffPost and Der Tagesspiegel both 2 are reliable-reputed websites that talks quite in detail about the brand and which is what required here to pass the notability bar. Slovenichibo (talk) 17:30, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
May I add the City AM article which, while containing an interview, is heavily edited with additional information. I believe it is both reliable and significant coverage.
talk) 17:52, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment While not really suitable for inclusion in the article, Surry Comet have ran a story focusing on a negative experience using Cat In A Flat.
talk) 18:01, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Per
NemesisAT coverage is available in multiple reliable sources. Rickshaw Takahashi (talk) 05:23, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Per all above, significant coverage is available in reliable sources. Nytendoz (talk) 17:20, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:GNG, WP:NCORP, among other guidelines. Wikipedia is NOT a platform for promotion, and corporations must have much more notability than a few mentions in some magazines and newspapers to qualify for an article. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 22:00, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Nestlé Purina PetCare, as that partnership seems to be the most notable aspect of their existence. BD2412 T 01:44, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Nestlé Purina PetCare per above. Hypogaearoots (talk) 07:08, 2 August 2021 (UTC)*[reply]

Comment As this will likely close soon I don't have time to go too in-depth but promotional issues has been addressed. The subject is a well known company in UK and like other dog sitter brands this cat sitting brand is also expanding. Overall, Company has received indepth coverage in many reliable sources like HuffPost and Der Tagesspiegel (Have won many Awards like BIMA Award and UNLEASHED Accelerator Lab Programme), got coverage in many other major well-known networks like BBC which is more than enough to qualify for notability. Slovenichibo (talk) 07:14, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to keep Per Slovenichibo and all above passes GNG and NCORP as has received coverage in major news networks. Hypogaearoots (talk) 07:24, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Daniel (talk) 08:07, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Melanin Haircare

Melanin Haircare (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 promo content Impeeriumalo (talk) 07:09, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Impeeriumalo (talk) 07:09, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Looks like a notable product with coverage on reliable websites. Also promo content has been dealt with, anyways AFD is not for cleanup. Slovenichibo (talk) 07:30, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per above several good refs are present to qualify notability. Jaysonsands (talk) 08:56, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes general notability guidelines with good sources present. Zackdasnicker (talk) 09:43, 30 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 not delete. I fail to find a consensus for or against redirection, but that need not be determined at AFD and can be discussed further at the article talk page. Stifle (talk) 11:14, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kian Bashiri

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

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

a non notable game developer fails
WP:GNG. GermanKity (talk) 06:55, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 06:55, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 06:55, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:58, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets
You Have To Burn The Rope and the game Swarm which won a Sweden Game Award, and the lead programmer of Pid (video game).Thisisarealusername (talk) Thisisarealusername (talk) 04:14, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - Meets WP:SNG WP:AUTHOR, indeed.BabbaQ (talk) 09:36, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you have the time, could you possibly summarize the contents of the Swedish radio program Kian was featured in?Thisisarealusername (talk) 01:59, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to ping}}) czar 17:06, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
I think WP:AUTHOR is much simpler than you make it sound: point 4: "The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention". I don't think there's any argument about YHTBTR easily fulfilling that criteria. I also don't think there's any good reason, based on that text, to say Swarm doesn't also, considering it's won what appears to be a prestigious award. As for Pid, it seems the team was very small and Kian appears in basically all interviews made for the game that I've come across, so I think saying he as lead programmer "co-created" it is fair, which then seems to meet the requirements for point 3 (which also YHBTR does, if not Swarm). The way the text on
WP:AUTHOR is supposed to be applied (though I could of course be wrong). Thisisarealusername (talk) 01:59, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect to You Have to Burn the Rope per CZAR, fails notability criteria._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 19:32, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What notability criteria?BabbaQ (talk) 07:12, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per BabbaQ meets WP:SNG WP:AUTHOR, indeed. Rickshaw Takahashi (talk) 05:19, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Czar; I don't believe the minimal coverage indicates that the person actually meets NAUTHOR point 4. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:08, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I can assure you that the game
WP:AUTHOR point 4 is clearly fulfilled by YHTBTR. Thisisarealusername (talk) 05:22, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect per Czar and PMC. Nytendoz (talk) 17:21, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 07:05, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vlada Akhundova

Vlada Akhundova (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 moved to draft. a non notable singer trying to promote herself on Wikipedia. Does not pass
WP:GNG GermanKity (talk) 06:52, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 06:52, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 06:52, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 06:52, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 06:52, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:09, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article has incorrect or incomplete information. For example, there is a claim stating that the subject has represented her country in Eurovision 2013, which is not true. She participated in the national preselection for Eurovision only. I couldn't find anything about the "Great Shehne" contest in Kiev. It doesn't exist or the name is misspelled. Moreover, the correct last name should be Axundrova, not Akhundrova, according to most sources. Dr.KBAHT (talk) 01:44, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom and Dr.KBAHT. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 22:47, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom fails GNG. Zackdasnicker (talk) 09:36, 30 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.

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/World Pantheist Movement

Articles for deletion/World Pantheist Movement (2nd nomination)

The result was no consensus. The discussion did not reach a consensus, and reviving a seventeen year old discussion is probably less advantageous than just making a new AfD. That will be started shortly.
(non-admin closure) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 17:30, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

World Pantheist Movement

World Pantheist Movement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

POV rant page by Paul Vogel. Is there even such an organisation? - David Gerard 21:33, Apr 2, 2004 (UTC)

Lean towards keeping newly written stub. Over 1000 hits for "World Pantheist Movement". Niteowlneils 21:51, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I got 2150. Keep stub. Meelar 02:28, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Newly written stub is good. Now the hard part is how to keep Vogel from reverting it to the incoherent POV rant several times a day ... - David Gerard 15:14, Apr 5, 2004 (UTC)
Delete Vogel? -- Cyrius|&#9998 02:55, Apr 6, 2004 (UTC)
See Wikipedia talk:Quickpolls for discussion of the 3-revert rule and anons - David Gerard 07:32, Apr 6, 2004 (UTC)

Relisted manually. consensus has not been reached–and in my opinion, the question is still valid. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 06:41, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Repinging @David Gerard, Cyrius, and Niteowlneils: If you're still around, this discussion isn't over. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 23:09, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is from 2004, so that discussion's been over for 17 years. I strongly recommend making this a separate new AFD - David Gerard (talk) 06:57, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, I'll restart it. Thought it'd be more pertinent to keep the old discussion going, but the article seems to be different now. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 17:29, 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 keep. Stifle (talk) 11:15, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tyler Glaiel

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

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

Again a video game developer wants his wiki page. Notability is not inherited from the available references. Fails
WP:GNG. GermanKity (talk) 06:27, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 06:27, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 06:27, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 06:27, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Looking around, there are a handful of sources that mention the name but only ever in connection with "Galiel developed X, collaborated with Y" kind of articles. However,
notability is not inherited from the games being discussed and the sources do not contain any in-depth coverage of Glaiel. The voice-activated face mask is a trivial news event. IceWelder [✉] 10:09, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. I've added additional sources. He was included in
WP:INHERIT specifically says: "four of the notability guidelines, for creative professions, books, films and music, do allow for inherited notability in certain circumstances".Thisisarealusername (talk) 13:28, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Interviews are inherently primary sources and are not "counted" for purposes of establishing notability. In-depth coverage is analysis independent of the subject. re: inheriting notability, if his role in those games is noteworthy, there should be plenty of material written about the individual. czar 02:19, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If interviews are considered "inherently primary sources" that don't "count" for establishing notability, why is that not mentioned with as much as a word in
WP:AUTHOR.Thisisarealusername (talk) 03:08, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
For your first question, see the summary at
WP:42#Independent sources
, which reads
We need sources that are independent from the subject of the article. Not: articles written by the topic (including interviews), paid for by the topic, their website, or their organization.
(emphasis mine)

My above analysis concerns only the independent sources and I believe it remains valid in that context. WP:AUTHOR#3 is valid only in the context of the "Additional criteria" section as a whole, which begins with:
People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards.
(emphasis mine)

It is not an immediate notability pass; czar's interpretation is apt. Comparably, Imran Sarwar is not inherently notable through Grand Theft Auto V, which he co-designed and co-produced, despite that game being one of the best-selling and highest-ranked of all time. Regards, IceWelder [✉] 13:11, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The suggestion that interviews (published in reliable sources) are not counted for establishing notability does not seem to be actually founded in policy, or it would be mentioned in said policy. Frankly, the idea does not make much sense to me. If hypothetically an author appears in a 2-page spread interview in the New York Times over one or several books they've written, you are saying we are to disregard this interview when establishing if they are notable or not? Why on Earth should we do that? What purpose could it possibly serve? A
WP:RS. But WP:Verifiability and WP:Notability are clearly two different concepts, two different policies. Thisisarealusername (talk) 03:50, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Re:
WP:SNG. The notability guidelines specifically say that a topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets either the general notability guideline or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG). I will ask for a clarification on this on the Notability (people) talk page. Thisisarealusername (talk) 04:02, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment I have not yet formed a view. But I just want to point out that
conflict of interest with the subject of the article? Haleth (talk) 17:32, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment I've expanded the article considerably since the time it was nominated. Difference between revisions: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tyler_Glaiel&diff=1035772139&oldid=1035360847 I assume it wouldn't have been nominated if it had looked like this from the start. I'll avoid creating new articles "incrementally" in the future.Thisisarealusername (talk) 01:38, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification Wikipedia:No_original_research#defs Note c lists interviews as a primary source. The No Original Research also does go on to state that notability shall be demonstrated by using secondary and tertiary sources. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 04:00, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The exact words are including (depending on context) reviews and interviews with a link to Wikipedia:Reliable sources#News organizations, so there is certainly room for interpretation with regards to whether interviews are or are not a primary source, and under what context can such material be used to demonstrate notability of the subject. Haleth (talk) 12:36, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I am aware of this subject matter and I can attest that Tyler Glaiel is certainly notable, due to his impressive ludography as a designer & programmer. However, this page certainly needs some cleanup and expansion, to reflect on the aforementioned notability. BOTTO_(T•C) 06:44, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per above, subject is notable as per available reliable coverage. Nytendoz (talk) 17:20, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: meets notability per provided sources. Peter303x (talk) 22:36, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Star Trek fan productions. czar 05:56, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Star Trek: Chains of Betrayal

Star Trek: Chains of Betrayal (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 fan fiction film does not appear to meet
WP:NFILM. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 03:12, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 03:12, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 03:12, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Clearly falls short of guidelines on film notability Dexxtrall (talk) 13:36, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable fan film. The only review included as a link in the article is not from a reliable source, and searching for any actual coverage turns up nothing in acceptable sources. Rorshacma (talk) 18:31, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There's some mild coverage of this out there and it was briefly noted in this PhD thesis. Not enough to where I'd say it should have its own article based on what I've found so far, but I do think that this could maybe merit a mention at Star Trek fan productions. It's not as heavy as some of the other fan films I've seen out there, coverage-wise, but it's still a teensy bit more than most offhand. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 00:49, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, two sources do not an article make. They look like good sources, though, so merge it to Star Trek fan productions. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 14:20, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per above. Not quite Axanar level. Artw (talk) 19:01, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge it to Star Trek fan productions as for single article there are no reliable sources. Rickshaw Takahashi (talk) 05:24, 31 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. "Keep" arguments don't stand up to analysis. For example, "Admittedly not all of them may be useful, but between these sources and the two above, there should be enough to pull together " amounts to something like " I haven't found any sources that establish notability, but there's a load of stuff around, so I guess there may be something suitable amongst it somewhere". This is a version of
WP:MUST. Also, thinking that the mere existence of two reviews automatically guarantees notability via WP:NFILM indicates a very superficial and inaccurate reading of that guideline. After discounting arguments such as those, we are left with a consensus to delete. JBW (talk) 20:22, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Love Begins

Love Begins (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 television film, lacking significant coverage by independent sources, per
WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 12:00, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:01, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Found a review at Dove.org [[16]]. That's halfway to passing
WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 12:31, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Yep, I already added that one. But that is all I could find. BOVINEBOY2008 12:33, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (for now) fails NFILM. I did some searching myself but only found unreliable sources such as blog post reviews and entries on databases.
talk) 21:04, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep as well as the Dove review, found a review at The Phantom Tollbooth here which is a listed reliable source for christian music, so that should cover films as well, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:54, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

General Notability Guideline
would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jack Frost (talk) 08:54, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or redirect to Hallmark Channel at best. Every stupid generic Christian film gets a glowing Dove review. While Dove and the Phantoom Tollbooth may be reliable, those are the only two sources that have been found here, and you can't really make a full article out of them. I couldn't find anything else besides those. 👨x🐱 (talk) 22:07, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, just because they are the only 2 sources, does not mean that they don't count toward the 2 review requirement of
WP:NFILM. They are both considered reliable sources per guidelines and personal opinion of those sources does not outweigh wikipedia consensus on their reliability. Donaldd23 (talk) 14:01, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete or redirect to WP:NFILM per the nom. Pahiy (talk) 05:06, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment, how do 2 reviews from Wikipedia reliable sources not meet
WP:NFILM requirements? Two reviews are all that is required, which this meets. Donaldd23 (talk) 14:02, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep, 2 reviews (Dove & Phantom Tollbooth) are all that is required to pass
WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 14:01, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment per
WP:NFO where the two review guideline comes from "However, meeting these criteria is not an absolute guarantee that Wikipedia should have a separate, stand-alone article entirely dedicated to the film." BOVINEBOY2008 19:25, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment Yet another case of where Wikipedia guidelines contradict one another!! When this happens I feel that editors must make a decision and be consistent with their choices. Let's say an editor lobbies for a film to be deleted because it doesn't have 2 reviews, then (In my humble opinion) they shouldn't argue for deletion when there are 2 reviews. Instead they should pick another reason for deletion as it is contradictory to say "Film #1 should be deleted because it doesn't have 2 reviews and therefore fails WP:NFILM", but then also say, "Film #2 should be deleted EVEN THOUGH it has 2 reviews, because WP:NFO says that". I'm not saying your rationale is wrong, just pointing out the contradictions that Wikipedia has. Thanks for suffering through my Ted talk! :) Donaldd23 (talk) 20:14, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I definitely hear you. However, I don't read this as a contradiction. The idea that a film "is widely distributed and has received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics" is an indication that "a thorough search for independent, third-party reliable sources will be successful". Despite this having two reviews, the follow-up has not come to fruition. It is still lacking significant coverage as far as I could find. The discussion should end at here are exactly two reviews so the subject is notable. The topic still should meet
WP:NF is spelling out for films specifically. BOVINEBOY2008 23:57, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep per research above. Additionally, I found the following sources:

Letterboxd: https://letterboxd.com/film/love-begins/

Rotten Tomatoes: https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/love_begins/

Mommy Bear Media: https://mommybearmedia.com/correct-order-love-softly-series/

Radio Times: https://www.radiotimes.com/film/qfvr6/love-begins-2011/

~~Times Community Media~~: https://www.tcm.com/tcmdb/title/870751/love-begins/

Up Faith and Family: https://my.upfaithandfamily.com/love-begins/

Admittedly not all of them may be useful, but between these sources and the two above, there should be enough to pull together a somewhat comprehensive article. Sean Stephens (talk) 01:15, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Letterboxd, Radio Times and Rotten Tomatoes are unreliable as they are comprehensive film databases. Also www.tcm.com is the domain for
talk) 02:49, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
@
Anonymous 7481: Radio Times is unreliable? That's the first I've heard of it. Is it just for the database information or everything else as well? As for the others, I didn't read them all thoroughly but I had thought they were all okay. I agree that the MBM source is the best one there. Sean Stephens (talk) 03:30, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Actually, I reckon it is reliable (as is Rotten Tomatoes, though it has been known to hold certain inaccuracies), what I meant was that ideally Wikipedia articles should not cite comprehensive databases and instead use them as external links (I should have worded it better). Reviews and other means of coverage are much more ideal. Also, an entry on the Radio Times does not establish notability or signify significant coverage due to it being a comprehensive database, which this article still lacks at the moment.
talk) 03:39, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Ah okay, now I understand what you meant! Thank you for clarifying. Sean Stephens (talk) 03:42, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mommy Bear Media is a self-proclaimed blog. We should not use blogs as an indication of notability nor a reliable source. BOVINEBOY2008 11:40, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Noted, thank you.
talk) 16:05, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

WP:GNG

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 14:17, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Bold third relist per Qwaiiplayer immediately above.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 02:13, 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 keep.
(non-admin closure) Dr. Universe (talk) 18:55, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Solid Waste Association of North America

Solid Waste Association of North America (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

~~References do not show~~
~~WP:GNG. RaziNaama (talk) 12:24, 10 July 2021 (UTC)~~Strike sock, blocked for sockpuppetry. Raymond3023 (talk) 12:02, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:15, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:16, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:16, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My
WP:NCORP. Chetsford (talk) 07:50, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 14:58, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added some references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:34, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ~~should this be kept, closing admin should check for copyvio. Portions appear to be lifted directly from here including the capitalization of 47 Chapters. Star Mississippi 14:50, 18 July 2021 (UTC)~~ this has been handled, thanks onel5969. Star Mississippi 13:36, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Given the addition of sources by Eastmain. Raymond3023 (talk) 12:02, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still not sold on the article and where the consensus of this debate sits, plus some eyes on potential copyvio would also be nice.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 02:12, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the copyvio issue has been dealt with. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:32, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Articles seems updated now. Copyvio issues are fixed and additional refs seems enough to make this page stick. Slovenichibo (talk) 07:26, 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. czar 05:52, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

John Kokken

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

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

non notable actor, can't see
WP:NACTOR DMySon (talk) 02:09, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 02:09, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 02:09, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 02:09, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as per nom, non-notable actor; article does not meet
WP:ENT --Whiteguru (talk) 03:22, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete: Per nom. No
Dimmi!!! 06:36, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete: Per nom. Can't see any supportable refs. Slovenichibo (talk) 07:24, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of meeting NACTOR or GNG. -- Ab207 (talk) 09:33, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article has just started being created. Needs time to improve. Hence, shouldn't be deleted. He is a notable actor, references are being added.Ranjith Kannankattil (talk) 15:04, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: non-notable actor, nothing to show
WP:GNG is met Ravensfire (talk) 15:46, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:04, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bodybuilding-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:04, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:04, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Refer the updated links with critiques accolades about the actor. Refer IMDB links as well. He is a well known actor who has acted in more than 30 films in South Indian Film industry.Ranjith Kannankattil (talk) 19:07, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable actor, does not meet WP:NACTOR. Bapinghosh (talk)

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

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

The result was speedy delete under
G3, hoaxes. —C.Fred (talk) 02:48, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Cowvania

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

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

Unnotable. Google searches only report Instagram. Wikinights (talk) 02:09, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Wikinights (talk) 02:09, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. Wikinights (talk) 02:09, 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. ✗plicit 13:51, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sonatype

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Sonatype

Articles for deletion/Sonatype (2nd nomination)

Articles for deletion/Sonatype Nexus

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

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

Non notable organization that fails to meet
WP:ORGDEPTH. The organization lacks significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. Their are 5 sources used in the article, 4 of them are press release. A before search turns out nothing cogent Celestina007 (talk) 21:15, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:15, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:15, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:15, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:15, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:15, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - this shouldn't have been recreated - David Gerard (talk) 23:36, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@David Gerard, Exactly, I was thinking of applying a G4, but I just figured to use AFD instead. Celestina007 (talk) 00:20, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bit of background on why this happened if anyone's curious ... I resurrected the post because I did a bunch of research around companies like it, including Whitesource. I also ran some edits on that page and it's also now somehow also up for deletion. I guess my edits/posts got flagged, which is fine. You might be able to tell from my edit history that I had an open weekend and got a little ambitious.
Anyway, having done moderation work on a public Wiki a long time ago, I'm sensitive to the fact that folks are always trying to throw up junk on the site. I have tried to address some of the concerns -- in particular removal of the primary-source press releases. I would point out the open source index is a freely available public service and the O'Reilly book do fall under the requirements of the "notability" requirements page. That page specifically mentions the "Dummies guide," reference, though I don't think the O'Reilly book was produced wholly independently of the company.
While I maintain that there's some potentially useful data here, I could be wrong. I actually intended to do more of a stub post and then come back down the road with some better info, but maybe the post should get deleted until that happens. I can backup what I've got now and then re-post if and when that gets to a reasonable size and quality level. That's fine too. Sandmanwaves (talk) 21:59, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 02:08, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While Sandmanwaves' efforts should be applauded, I can't see how this passes
WP:NCORP. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:25, 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. ✗plicit 05:05, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1506 in archaeology

1506 in archaeology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 04:22, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One unsourced entry; the only year in the 1500s to have an article titled like this. I don't see a 16th century in archaeology article to merge/redirect to; Post-medieval archaeology might refer to the timeframe but is of awful quality. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 01:48, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 01:48, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Honestly, I think
WP:TNT is the best option here. The other option would be a page move to 1500s in archaeology (referring to the decade), as there is a 1600s, 1610s, etc etc. Still, a single unsourced entry doesn't leave a lot to work with. The entire Table of years in archaeology page is sadly terribly incomplete. Curbon7 (talk) 04:21, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete: this belongs in a list article, not in an article nor category of its own. As per nom,
WP:TNT, blow it up and start over again. --Whiteguru (talk) 05:29, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete: Per nom and above
WP:TNT is the best option here. Slovenichibo (talk) 07:25, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as anachronistic; archaeology as a discipline didn't yet exist in the 16th century, so obviously there aren't going to be sources discussing archaeology in 1506, 1500s, etc. Post-medieval archaeology is also not a great merge target, since it is about the archaeology of the post-medieval period, not archaeology practised in the post-medieval period. – Joe (talk) 11:21, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. Yes. You are absolutely right. It would have to be History of archaeology as the target, which has its own problems. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 01:22, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to 1506, where there is already a rather briefer account of the same event. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:57, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to 1506. There is never going to be enough information about archaeology in 1506 to justify a stand-alone page, but the content there is good, and 1506 is an appropriate place for it to go. As a side note, an interesting little piece of trivia. BilledMammal (talk) 05:52, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As stated, the single event listed here is completely described in the 1506 article already. There is actually no sourced content in this article that is not already present there, so there is nothing to merge. In addition, as explained by Joe above, the term would be an anachronism, and thus not even appropriate as a Redirect. Rorshacma (talk) 17:23, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unsourced content. As stated above this event is already described in the article entitled 1506. Nothing to merge and not suitable as a redirect. Steve Quinn (talk) 01:18, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 05:06, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hystereme

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

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

Verifiability concerns. I am unable to find any attestations of this word other than in Goodrick-Clarke's works and wiki mirrors. The reference to Goodrick-Clarke uses the word only in passing. Even if it is not his own creation, it does not appear to be a notable concept. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 01:45, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 01:45, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 05:17, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 05:17, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete: as per nom, it is *very* challenging to find verification of this term. --Whiteguru (talk) 05:27, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

delete too short Esaïe Prickett (talk) 06:14, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and all above, seems very challenging to find verification of this term. Slovenichibo (talk) 07:37, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

comment while there are few uses of the term hytereme itself, and the current article doesn't meet even low thresholds, the plural(?) hysterema seems to be slightly more common, to the point of dispelling doubt about the concept's existence. See for example google books. Matthias Winkelmann (talk) 12:52, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not particularly surprised that a spelling variant has non-zero coverage. Kenoma#Hysterema looks like a good redirect target with references (Harvard-style, but valid). User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 14:53, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article's prose content is only eight words long and has never exceeded that length. Furthermore, it doesn't clearly explain the concept it is about. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:13, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Universe#Synonyms and include there. The term refers to the material universe as opposed to the abstract realms or those occupied exclusively by spirits.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 04:05, 30 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_25&oldid=1039997509"~~