Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 July 26

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was consensus not to delete. There is no consensus for or against merging, but a further discussion on this can be taken forward on the article talk page or another appropriate location. Stifle (talk) 11:17, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of extreme points of Denmark

List of extreme points of Denmark (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 could be recreated if someone comes up with a source spelling out any of these points, but as it stands, this is 100% pure

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 01:10, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 01:10, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 01:10, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep, but trim down to sourced info. I don't see why we should pick on Denmark when so many other countries have equivalent lists (Andorra may be an exception). There's a smaller list at WorldAtlas. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:28, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Internet Archive only shows the cited page going back to 2019, I'm not convinced that their data is not dependent on our pages, especially since their numbers exactly match ours as recorded in the late 2018 version here. It is of course possible that our numbers got copied from an earlier, differently named page of theirs, but there's no proof of that either. THat said, if they could be proven to be not dependent on us, I'd be somewhat willing to go along with this resolution, with a big caveat I'll go into below. Mangoe (talk) 21:13, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The question of national extreme points pages is a broader one and there are many dozens of them. Certainly there's no case for deleting this one. Smb1001 (talk) 09:52, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is an
    WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. Mangoe (talk) 21:13, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Keep As noted above, this can be sourced to WorldAtlas. Going by previous
  WP:Reliable source. TompaDompa (talk) 10:21, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • It can't all be so sourced, and as I said above, there is reason to suspect that they are repeating our information. Mangoe (talk) 21:13, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • All the stuff that could be sourced to WorldAtlas now is, and all of the stuff that was unsourced after doing so has been removed (
      WP:RSN discussions such as Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 286#worldatlas.com, the answer seems to be yes (see also Wikipedia:New page patrol source guide#Geography and history). TompaDompa (talk) 12:36, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
      ]
• Keep If the nominator bothered to open up the Template:Extreme_points_of_Europe which is shown in the bottom of the article, it would be evident that every country in Europe and the European Union have such articles. Also many countries outside Europe have them. In that case every article should be nominated, but people are interested in this info and therefore all these articles were created.--BIL (talk) 20:35, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • As far as all these articles are concerned, it seems to me that it would make a great deal more sense to merge the lot into one or a few list articles. The creating of separate articles when a tabular display woul;d be as accurate and far more succinct is a common bad habit here. Mangoe (talk) 21:13, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep No reason to single out this particular article. I agree with Clarityfiend that the article should be trimmed and all the information therein properly sourced using reliable sources.--Darwinek (talk) 22:58, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, there is are reasons: the abominable sourcing, and because this happens to be the one I was made aware of. If others are as bad, they need to be dealt with as well. And nearly every time I try to do a group nom, someone tries to shut it down procedurally, so I'm not going to bother any more. Mangoe (talk) 21:13, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Many of the items listed in the {{
  talk) 19:10, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • I would be OK to merging this into Denmark (or wherever) once the sourcing issue is dealt with. Mangoe (talk) 21:13, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• comment on other pages I've looked at a handful of the European examples, and so far Andorra is the only example with sourcing at all. Mangoe (talk) 21:27, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hah! Clarityfiend (talk) 05:35, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Geography of Denmark as an editorial decision; that article should include much of this information and currently does not. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 18:10, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Geography of Denmark. The same has been done with many other European countries. Exceptions make sense in the cases of big countries with many dependencies (ie. Norway), but for most countries this is information that should be listed on the respective geography page, imo. Kaffe42 (talk) 12:18, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Judging from what I've seen with others, this sounds like the right solution. providing the unsourced statements don't make the trip. Mangoe (talk) 01:09, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Daniel (talk) 01:59, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Attack of the Sabretooth

Attack of the Sabretooth (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 per

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:26, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, Review at Dread Central, critic rating at Allmovie, both are
  WP:RS. Another review at Horror Forever [[1]], although not sure it has been vetted for being a RS. Donaldd23 (talk) 15:45, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Can you link the Allmovie review? I cannot seem to find it. The other link you provided is clearly a blog, it is run by blogger. Either way, the two critic reviews are supposed to be indications that there is significant coverage of the film. Despite this, it is nearly impossible to find articles talking about this film. I don't think this film meets the "significant coverage" part explained by
    WP:GNG. Am I missing a lot of sources? BOVINEBOY2008 16:17, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • [[2]], it only has an Allmovie rating (1.5 stars out of 5), but no review published. I've seen other AfD's where only the rating is needed. Donaldd23 (talk) 16:55, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • NFO stipulates that the review should be by a national recognized critic. If we don't have a by-line, I'm not sure we should consider that a measure of its notability. BOVINEBOY2008 17:15, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Per [[3]], Allmovie is considered a
          WP:RS and can be used toward notability. Donaldd23 (talk) 17:48, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
          ]
          • Coverage in a reliable source does not mean notability. We also have to look at the significance of coverage. Having a star rating with no other information amounts to a capsule review which is not an indication of notability. BOVINEBOY2008 18:02, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • But also,
              WP:IAR :) Donaldd23 (talk) 19:04, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
              ]
              • But also,
                WP:NOTIAR: "Ignore all rules" is not in itself a valid answer if someone asks you why you broke a rule. Most of the rules are derived from a lot of thoughtful experience and exist for pretty good reasons; they should therefore only be broken for good reasons. BOVINEBOY2008 19:08, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
                ]

• Keep per Donaldd23. A detailed article about a Sci-Fi Channel film that has a director, producer and nine cast members, all with Wikipedia entries. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 23:23, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, please review
    WP:NINI, notability is not inherited. This is not a valid argument for keeping. BOVINEBOY2008 21:25, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 01:59, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bed & Breakfast (2006 film)

Bed & Breakfast (2006 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable film, lacking significant coverage, sources in article are from non-notable interviews with actor or citations about the actor/not about the film, does not meet

• Delete as failing
  talk page 15:54, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

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

• Keep. A well-sourced entry with two image files, five inline cites and four external links. One cast member, Rúaidhrí Conroy, has numerous acting credits. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 22:19, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • WP:ATA. Thank you! Kolma8 (talk) 15:30, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]

• Keep, I've added another source, a Wired article. I disagree with the nominator in that the interviews are non-notable.
  talk) 22:41, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  WP:RS is a good read that can help you to understand BOVINEBOY's position on the matters in regards of the notability of the sources. Kolma8 (talk) 15:22, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Delete: per nom. I did my own
  WP:BEFORE and failed to find anything notable. Four external links: One to Feiss IMDB page (irrelevant, needs to be deleted); one to the short's IMDB (relevant); one to Rotten Tomatoes site (404 - NOT FOUND, needs to be deleted); the last one "Extracts..." is irrelevant and needs to go. None of the sources neither directly about the short or notable. Thus, fails WP:NF. Kolma8 (talk) 15:39, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete per the very well reasoned deletion argument of Kolma8.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:20, 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.

Tinta Invisible

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

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

Doesn't appear to meet

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

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

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

English Words

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

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

Article about a band, not

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:23, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:23, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 22:27, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DevelopIntelligence

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

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

Promotional page by SPA. No evidence of notability.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 21:43, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 21:43, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 21:43, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. #1 is not an RS per
  WP:MEDIUM. #2 has a popup asking to provide an email to keep reading the article, which is not acceptable. #3 is a press release. #4 doesn't have a real author name. Dr.KBAHT (talk) 22:22, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • @Dr.KBAHT: so you're aware, sources can be paywalled or registration-walled without it impacting on their acceptability on sourcing Nosebagbear (talk) 00:15, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Of course, that's normal practice for some libraries and other good sources. However, an unexpected popup suddenly asking to provide personal info doesn't look like a registration-walled source, but more like a task for an ad-blocker. Dr.KBAHT (talk) 19:31, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not notable, may redirect to Pluralsight VViking_TalkEdits 22:24, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

UTC)

• Delete Could perhaps move this to a Draft if there are RS to be found. Meaning vet everything being offered and double-check. But current form is not acceptable. - Scarpy (talk) 00:04, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The article looks like a press release and looking at the edit history shows many of the edits were made by accounts obviously associated with the company itself. A redirect to Pluralsight would be sufficient until an article with reliable sources is created.DogsRNice (talk) 05:13, 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.

Blue Eagle Gym

Blue Eagle Gym (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 21:43, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:45, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:45, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:46, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: The only source in the article seem reliable. I also found some reliable sources which talk about the gym: [4], [5], [6] and [7]. There was a report regarding an incident during a game held in the gym. Search results also cover games, notably from NCAA, UAAP and V-League, held in the gym. That said, the article is good enough to pass
  WP:GNG. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 10:00, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Seems to meet GNG per above sources. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 01:53, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Passes GNG as has significant coverage in reliable sources. Slovenichibo (talk) 07:32, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above commenters, passes
  talk) 13:30, 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. RL0919 (talk) 21:41, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Feral

Roman Feral (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 fails

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:26, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:26, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all the sources given are dubious and most likely the result of press release churn and paid placement. He has no independent coverage in reliable sources. --- Possibly ☎ 21:02, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Sources are neither independent not reliable. Article claims coverage in the NYT, but https://www.nytimes.com/search?query=%22Roman+Feral%22 yields nothing.
  That "worldwide expansion in over 18 galleries" Guess who has venues in London, Monaco, Miami, New York, Courchevel, Megeve, Cannes, Honfleur? Galeries Bartoux is an international group with 18 galleries, according to itself.
  Also note that https://cranyz.com/international-artist-roman-feral-combines-luxury-nature/ and https://www.justluxe.com/lifestyle/arts/feature-1969082.php are the same article, only in different languages. Thought we wouldn't notice? Vexations (talk) 20:48, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, though I must say an 'interesting' strategy to accept a draft from Articles for Creation then immediately nominate it for deletion! This artist is possibly on the cusp of
  notability but, realistically, the only news source of any repute is Forbes and only a couple of paragraphs about Feral in that article. The other sources I'd say were 'stuff on the internet' or sources with a clear vested interest. I can't find anything else obvious online to persuade me otherwise. Sionk (talk) 23:26, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete the collections are not in major galleries as is required by
  contributor piece and no more useful for notability than a random blog post. Doubtful many people would vote to keep this, to be honest. Spicy (talk) 23:49, 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 delete. RL0919 (talk) 22:21, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cognizance Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies

Cognizance Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

To quote from the article body: "The Cognizance Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies is a peer-reviewed scientific journal covering research in the Interdisciplinarity. ... The journal is abstracted and indexed in:

• Publons
• Crossref
• ORCID
• Academia.edu"

I hardly think anything more needs to be said. JBL (talk) 20:17, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. JBL (talk) 20:17, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails
  b} 20:39, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete for lack of indexing. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:49, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Does not meet
  WP:NJOURNALS --Whiteguru (talk) 22:02, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Misses NJournals and GNG. Sounds predatory, but not bad enough to have generated coverage that would satisfy GNG. Note that Publons, despite being Clarivate owned, is suspect as it even includes OMICS titles and allows publishers to give the most egregious promotional descriptions of their rags. --Randykitty (talk) 22:21, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Also looking at
  b} 22:32, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Yes, almost certainly. --JBL (talk) 22:32, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Misses
  talk) 00:13, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note I believe that the editor is a representative of OMICS (OMICS representatives, paid or otherwise are community banned) and I have given a final warning. —SpacemanSpiff 04:52, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See also

b} 07:53, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

• Note from Research531 First of all, i am not related or representative of OMICS Group, Secondly i am not even related to the journal on which i wrote the article. I am just the beginner and want to contribute to wikipedia. But i was wrong, wikipedia is full of people who instead of encouraging people, they will discourage and not only discourage but also criticize for the things which new users never commit. Hence, i am really sorry that i tried contributing to wikipedia and you can delete my article. Thanks for letting me know that their is no scope for new editors or users. Not only this, but just now i realized that all my previous genuine edits were also removed without any reasons.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Research531 (talk • contribs)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

Tarik Ramić

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

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

Easily fails

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 19:55, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 19:55, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 19:55, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 19:57, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 20:36, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - has played in a competitive match between two clubs both from

WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 10:11, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

• *Delete Per nom, lacks news coverage to qualify GNG. Jaysonsands (talk) 08:58, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per new findings. Has played in FPL's. Jaysonsands (talk) 10:19, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Both Moldova and Bosnia are FPL's so he does pass
  WP:NFOOTY. Dougal18 (talk) 09:10, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Dimmi!!! 09:33, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Comment Cup matches between two FPL clubs give a pass of
      WP:NFOOTY. Dougal18 (talk) 09:56, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • Dimmi!!! 10:19, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
        ]
• Keep: Per Dougal18. Played Cup matches between two FPL clubs, therefore he pass
  Dimmi!!! 10:20, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment I nominated the page for deletion as I was made aware by @JTtheOG that he failed NFOOTY. I assumed the Moldovan league was not fully-pro without checking the list. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 11:18, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • My bad there, I don't think I aware about the Moldovan league being a FPL. I'll have to double check next time. JTtheOG (talk) 19:31, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, passes GNG.--Ortizesp (talk) 13:00, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Ortizesp: He doesn't pass GNG. If anything, he passes NFOOTY. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 13:05, 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 delete. No prejudice against creating a redirect to the decade article, but there was not enough discussion of that to declare a consensus result for it. RL0919 (talk) 19:44, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of Playboy Playmates of 2019

List of Playboy Playmates of 2019 (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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:40, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this and all other Playboy Playmate list articles for reasons listed here; the sources used in this article and every other "Playboy Playmate" article all seem to be primary and definitely not fitting for WP. wizzito | say hello! 19:47, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:58, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Playmates have certainly been discussed as a group, e.g. "Seven Tenths Incorrect: Heterogeneity and Change in the Waist-to-Hip Ratios of Playboy Centerfold Models and Miss America Pageant Winners" in The Journal of Sex Research, Harding, Les, A Biographical Dictionary of Playboy Magazine's Playmates of the Month, 1953-1979 (McFarland 2019) and Edgren, Gretchen. The Playmate Book: Six Decades of Centerfolds (Taschen 2005) (although the last may not be entirely independent). pburka (talk) 21:02, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. gnu57 21:25, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:17, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Articles about small groups (like
  pseudobiographies stapled together. The sources suggested by Pburka contain information about various Playboy magazine models, but not about the particular group of people who were featured in 2019. I share the nominator's view of the body measurement parameters in Template:Infobox Playboy Playmate. Cheers, gnu57 22:27, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • We have lists of of Playboy Playmates for every year from
    WP:SIZE. Is it your position that some of these sublists are notable, but not 2019? pburka (talk) 23:32, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • I think that the general concept
      List of people in Playboy 2010–2020 is a somewhat better format IMO.) gnu57 04:37, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
      ]
• Comment Unsure at this time. Surely there are past AfDs of porn individuals in which editors have voted "Redirect to List of such-and-such...", so I would be hesitant to undercut a likely landing spot for numerous incoming redirects. But the current format is wasteful fanboy bloat. Who shot the pics is irrelevant, as is their body measurements. Toss those, toss the entire "personal details" infobox, retain the name, the pictorial month, and date and place of birth. Once all this is on a single line, you could easily do List of Playboy Playmates (2010-2019) and condense sixty-six(!) articles into eight. If there's interest, I could try to mock up what the 2010-19 one would look like in a sandbox. Zaathras (talk) 04:11, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Something similar already exists: please see
    List of people in Playboy 2010–2020. Cheers, gnu57 04:37, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Yeah, I think the decades list is a much superior way to cover the topic anyway, no need for the years. A simple list by decade is more than enough. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 05:34, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree that the current format is less than ideal and would support merging or rewriting. pburka (talk) 12:59, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh. Well, there we go then. :) Individual year articles serve no purpose. Zaathras (talk) 01:23, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all of the per-year articles, per the above pointing out that by decade lists already exist. Zaathras (talk) 01:23, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per-year articles; none meet
  WP:LISTN for lack of significant secondary coverage. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:19, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Redirect all to the per-decade articles; this is just a
  WP:CFORK of those lists plus a COATRACK for biographies of non-notable people. I hope that all the other articles of this form can be redirected based on consensus here and without a follow-up discussion. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 18:16, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete all This is basically Wikipedia promoting a cite as notable which really is not. It is one of our last relics of our past unjustified overcoverage of pornography.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:24, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A mess, in my opinion. By the way, was redirected here for some reason (was looking for an actress, to be honest). Will try and see if "Meagan Moore" is an actress or a Playboy playmate... :)--Filmomusico (talk) 19:09, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 19:40, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tuan Mohd Yaasin Tuan Mohd Hanafiah

Tuan Mohd Yaasin Tuan Mohd Hanafiah (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 cited sources are just trivial mentions. Google News and a Malaysian source search yielded nothing better. Clear consensus from previous referee AfDs that referees are required to satisfy

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:36, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:36, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:36, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:40, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 19:48, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 20:10, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Per nom and above fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Jaysonsands (talk) 08:58, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — seems to only have passing mentions in other possible places. — CVValue (talk) 18:57, 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 delete. Since this is a BLP, I'm going with the more conservative of the two options discussed, but open to reviving as a draft if the creator or another editor wants to take specific responsibility for it. RL0919 (talk) 20:28, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Guilherme Smith

Guilherme Smith (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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 19:17, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 19:17, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 19:17, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 19:17, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 19:18, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify per nom - coverage does indeed seem fairly routine at the moment Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:39, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 19:48, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator FiddleheadLady (talk) 20:23, 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.

Anacortes School District

Anacortes School District (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

un-referenced school article fails

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 17:58, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 17:58, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 17:58, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: fails
  WP:GNG FiddleheadLady (talk) 20:36, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. I added some references. Both the school district and its high school are probably notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:33, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:34, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It's a school district, not a single school. No evidence of
  WP:BEFORE efforts. Jclemens (talk) 02:02, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep It's a school district. Compare with others please.ClemRutter (talk) 08:49, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, because of failure of
  WP:HEY effort by Eastmain. Besides, school districts are almost always notable, and we typically redirect non-notable elementary and middle school articles to the appropriate district. Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 09:06, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep An editor once said that school districts pass
  talk) 20:34, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete This article is super lacking in useful information in an encyclopedia and super overly covering details that do not matter much in the long run of things. The very nature of these articles is they tend towards overly detailed snapshots of an arbitrary moment. Having read literally thousands of these articles I can say virtually none have any useful information, and we would be better off removing them than letting them stand as an overly detailed snapshot of the world in about 2011 for the next 50 years.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:33, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry, was there supposed to be a policy-based deletion rationale there, or are you simply intentionally making a statement of preference knowing it's against consensus? Jclemens (talk) 08:17, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, As school districts are almost always notable.Jackattack1597 (talk) 09:35, 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. RL0919 (talk) 18:21, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Luca Valenti

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

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

Despite I'm the creator of the page I start an AfD discussion. There was a concensus that says that one or two appearances aren't enough for a player to be notable if GNG is failed so comprehensively.

Note: This discussion has been included in the

Salvus 17:56, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

Salvus 17:56, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

Salvus 17:56, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:19, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - there is longstanding consensus that scraping by on NFOOTBALL with one or two appearances is insufficient when GNG is failed so comprehensively, as is the case here. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 18:34, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep Delete: Updated my vote 7.29 based on discussion below. Based on my interpretation of
  WP:NFOOTY Players who have played, and managers who have managed, in a competitive game between two teams from fully professional leagues will generally be regarded as notable.. He played in games in the Serie C which is a professional league based on this list. It is weak because Trapani was excluded from Serie C for this year. FiddleheadLady (talk) 20:44, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Salvus 20:55, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you for the response. Can you point me to where the consensus is written so that I can learn more? FiddleheadLady (talk) 19:00, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@

Salvus 19:27, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

@

WP:NFOOTBALL listed here, but see also e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott Sinclair (footballer born 1991) and many more. GiantSnowman 20:21, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

It's also referenced in

WP:WINNEROUTCOMES - bullet point #4 Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:37, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you! This is helpful. I have updated my vote FiddleheadLady (talk) 13:03, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Comprehensive failure of
  WP:GNG makes the presumption of notability from playing 4 minutes in Serie C invalid. Jogurney (talk) 14:12, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - the coverage is routine and not hugely significant and he only very trivially passes
  WP:NFOOTBALL. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:11, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Coverage in presented sources lacks more than trivial depth. Subject seems to lack even the bonafides sufficient to attain even the initial SNG presumption, let alone an ultimate GNG determination via in-depth coverage in RS. Article's author is, however, to be complimented in being a newish editor remaining open to the AfD process and contrary consensus. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 03:13, 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.

I will also EC-salt Nosebagbear (talk) 19:25, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Madhagaja

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

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

unreleased film, yet not decided the releasing date. Still a case of

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 17:01, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 17:01, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete per
  WP:Parallel histories are fine, I have to wonder if there is some kind of payout being sought for creation of the article if people are not willing to build off one of two drafts already there. -2pou (talk) 17:20, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Speedy delete: per nom and the rationale above. Kolma8 (talk) 18:35, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and Salt - There is no material difference between this and the previously draftified version or the previous draft, and the film still does not satisfy
  good-faith explanation for the multiple creations is that the editors are ultras, enthusiastic fans for the director or one of the actors. That does not mean that we should accept this article. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:48, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Speedy delete: per nom -- DaxServer (talk) 09:29, 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 delete. ✗plicit 00:04, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apparel 2000

Apparel 2000 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Seems to be a non-notable custom embroidery company; no secondary sources found on search, unsourced since 2009. Fails

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 16:52, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 16:52, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 16:52, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:37, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I can't find anything to support this company meeting the requirements of
  WP:GNG. The 2 sources I found were just simple mentions they worked with some groups to make patches [11] and [12]. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 22:38, 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. Daniel (talk) 02:00, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of career achievements by Yannick Filipović

List of career achievements by Yannick Filipović (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Unnecessary split. The two goals scored can easily be covered in the Bio article. No comparison to an article like List of career achievements by Cristiano Ronaldo or List of career achievements by Lionel Messi. Simply put, only tip-top tier athletes warrant this type of page, and Filipovic is not there yet. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 16:44, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 16:44, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 16:44, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 16:44, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Montenegro-related deletion discussions. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 16:44, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 16:44, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:20, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:21, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - he hasn't even played his first game of professional football yet! This is way, way too soon! When he starts getting mentioned in the same breath as Ronaldo or Messi, then we can create this. He doesn't have any career achievements worth documenting currently. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:24, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per above
  Salvus 18:08, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - simply not worthy of a separate article. GiantSnowman 18:11, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This sorry excuse of a pathetic article. Govvy (talk) 19:21, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 20:10, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per everyone else. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:18, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 12:56, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Per all the above and the nom JW 1961 ^Talk 21:42, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per
  WP:FANCRUFT. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 15:29, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete any career achievements list that has to say he scored two goals in his life is not worth saving, nor is one where the only achievement is a regional under-19 tournament. The elephant in the room here is why someone with no professional appearances has an article anyway, but there may be
  WP:GNG with all this interest from Peru, which I always believed was a country that had better players than him anyway? 2A00:23C5:E187:5F00:FD08:8733:2B16:CAAF (talk) 17:28, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Unnecessary spilt. Anything worth saving here can easily be covered in the main Yannick Filipović article. Ejgreen77 (talk) 21:42, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - utterly ridiculous to have such an article for a player who as yet has accomplished basically nothing in his footballing career -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:37, 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.

John H. Morgan (Pilot)

John H. Morgan (Pilot) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

While this biography is amply referenced, it looks as if none of the source are at the same time indepth and reliable. The source with the most content is probably Honorstates, which is basically a wiki. The oral history source is a primary source, and has little about the pilot anyway. The third important source is the Stardust studios, again not a reliable source.

Note: This discussion has been included in the

Fram (talk) 15:41, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

Fram (talk) 15:41, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

Fram (talk) 15:41, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

Fram (talk) 15:41, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 15:48, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete fails
  WP:BASIC as most of the sources are not reliable or independent. "notable for being one of the first forty-three African American combat fighter pilots ever" please... I note with concern that the creator has also created pages for a number of other Tuskegee Airmen who similarly seem to fail notability. Mztourist (talk) 12:39, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Yes, these others are a rather mixed bunch as well. Some are notable for other reasons (e.g.
  Fram (talk) 13:39, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep per
  WP:GNG.Sources used in the areticle leave much to be desired, but sources do exist. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:40, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Which of these sources are
    Fram (talk) 10:45, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    [13][14] You haven't presented anything to back up your claim that sources supplied are unreliable. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:09, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry but I don't think that [15] is RS. Mztourist (talk) 04:30, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• And the second source[16] are passing mentions, and the book is self-published. So no, no reliable sources, and certainly none with significant attention for this person.
  Fram (talk) 07:28, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete As was the case with many of the articles for WWII members of E Company, 506th Infantry Regiment (United States) (see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Rader, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dewitt Lowrey), passing mentions and being a member of a well known unit does not equal notability. Best, GPL93 (talk) 14:23, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Mostly per nom. I'm not seeing any real RS here. Intothatdarkness 21:21, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails
  WP:ANYBIO. I proposed for deletion two other similar articles by this editor, Henry B. Perry and Richard C. Caesar. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:32, 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. ✗plicit 14:53, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Manchester United 2021-22 Current Squad

Manchester United 2021-22 Current Squad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

PROD contested with reasoning No Wikipedia page is covering appearances as a collective and contract dates. For that reason, it should be allowed to stay.

Rationale was No need for a stand-alone article on the current squad. Manchester United F.C. covers this perfectly well enough. I also don't see this functioning as a redirect.

As far as I can see, this remains valid. The squad can be updated on 2021–22 Manchester United F.C. season as transfers happen. No need for a separate article covering this. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:50, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:51, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:51, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:52, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 14:54, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I think what the article creator was after was 2021–22 Manchester United F.C. season, where this kind of info might feasibly be covered. Separate article entirely inappropriate, and nothing worth merging/redirecting. GiantSnowman 15:38, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was not allowed to add total current club appearances and goals on the club page. I would be happy to add it in a format agreed by others but such a statistic cannot be found as a collective elsewhere. --Chats90 (talk) 15:52, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Chats90: it is incredibly poor form to simply start a new article to display the information you want, if there is consensus at an existing article not to have that information. Such conduct, if repeated, would be viewed as disruptive and would lead to you being blocked. GiantSnowman 16:21, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The information has correct citations from the Man Utd website. Wikipedia belongs to everyone, sure you can go ahead get the article deleted. You make up your own rules then threaten bans for anyone that does not conform to your wishes (others as well). Not even once has anyone told, "hey if you want to make a contribution let's figure out how we can add those statistics to a page, all I have been met with is unwarranted criticism and unhelpful comments of how this information is not useful". There would be no need to block me as I officially give up. I don't have time to fight ego wars. I have decided to stay away from Wikipedia altogether. You insist that this format is not allowed yet I find it on pages of hundreds of other clubs. Perhaps I have misunderstood the goal of Wikipedia, either way, it doesn't matter. The only thing that is poor form here is this relentless bullying. I will not be getting involved in this toxic contribution cycle. Thanks for all your hard work and others in the past. --Chats90 (talk) 16:44, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the info is on the encyclopaedia already but just in different places. For cumulative appearances, we have List of Manchester United F.C. players, List of Manchester United F.C. players (25–99 appearances) and List of Manchester United F.C. players (1–24 appearances) - you are more then welcome to maintain these lists and to help keep them up to date and to add new entries where appropriate. I'm sorry that you feel bullied, this was 100% not my intention. I started this discussion in the hope of gaining consensus. Wikipedia works by consensus. Whilst having a separate article on a squad hasn't been done before, it isn't a case of 'it will never be done' but such an idea would need to gain consensus from the community. This deletion discussion is a place where any editor can come in and make their views clear on the subject. I still, personally, believe that this information is better in the articles that they already in and that having a separate article for a current squad is unnecessary but that's only my opinion. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:29, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 15:49, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 15:50, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete The squad is well documented on multiple other pages, being in a separate article is just duplication of existing content. Which is clearly not needed. Govvy (talk) 18:51, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete squad list already exists in many other places, the discussion here shows this is just an attempt to circumnavigate the fact that one user wants to add lots more information to those tables, against the recent discussions/consensus at
  WT:FOOTY. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:15, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per nom. Either
  boldly include the information on the 2021–22 Manchester United F.C. season page, or build a consensus on the talk page. Otherwise, I agree with Joseph2302. --MuZemike 04:27, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • The info was already boldly included at
    WT:FOOTY recently, there is a consensus among the WikiProject that tables like this are not appropriate. – PeeJay 19:29, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Delete - Seems a little
  WP:POINTY to me. – PeeJay 19:29, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - Per the nominator as we don't need that information for a separate page. HawkAussie (talk) 06:46, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Hypocrisy - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021%E2%80%9322_Arsenal_F.C._season, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021%E2%80%9322_Inter_Milan_season

Such Hypocrisy on Display. I added the above on the season's page where it should be like other clubs have but clearly, Wikipedia contribution is a walled garden. As I stated above I do not want to be part of this toxic ego war so go ahead and do what you want.--Chats90 (talk) 15:52, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this is and should be on the per-season page, and not as a separate article. Also, "Current" is a problematic word to have in a title. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 18:24, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per above.Muur (talk) 20:30, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per everyone above, also ridiculous title, because in 12 months the 2021-22 squad won't be the current squad any more..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:35, 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 delete. ✗plicit 14:49, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rifat Hasan Rabbi

Rifat Hasan Rabbi (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 awards would probably prevent a

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:47, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:47, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:47, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 15:53, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 15:53, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

@Spiderone: Dear Sir, Rifat Hasan Rabbi is an Musical Artist.He is verified artist on many International Media. So,I think he should have a article on Wikipedia.I give some valid link for verification. I give his Google Scholar Link.https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=1a4jzasAAAAJ It is his google scholar link. Please,don't delete this article. Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rif.Rifat (talk • contribs)

WP:NSCHOLAR! I have added the discussion to Academics and Educators so someone with more experience on assessing academics can help. Why does the article not contain any reference to his academic work and why is there no coverage online of all of this work that he is doing? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:14, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I don't understand what the Google Scholar link above means or how it relates to him -- there are articles listed there from before he was born (the first article is from 1995, while the subject was born in 2003). Not to mention, this article is about him being a musician, not an academic (it would be difficult for a 17-year-old to be an extensively published scholar). Most of the citations in this article are just links to his own music or unreliable sites such as
  Medium.com. I don't think he qualifies for an article at this time. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:38, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. User:Spiderone, the google scholar profile, while impressive, is also a fake (none of the listed papers I checked have him as an author) or a hijack (possibly of Rifat Atun, not sure). It is also a poorly done fake, as it has him writing academic papers from before his birth (e.g. papers from 1995, Rabbi was born in 2003 according to the article). As for the musician side he lacks significant coverage and this is corroborated by the YouTube test - he has 9 subscribers on YouTube and all of the videos have less than 100 views.--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 16:46, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both for your input. It's really quite alarming that Google Scholar would allow such a hoax to be on there! I trust that there isn't always great fact-checking going on there or it's a website, like Wikipedia, that anyone can edit? I was confident about failing MUSICBIO and GNG so when the creator threw the claim to notability as an academic in there, it really had me flapping! Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:19, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The profiles on Google scholar are, in my understanding, user generated. You need to verify your e-mail, but it will let you add any paper to your profile. They might cull bad profiles by some process, but in most cases real researchers won't post fake profiles of themselves, e.g. claiming authorship of someone else's papers, as that would be plagiarism and a large academic scandal. Note that the papers themselves, and citation counts thereof, are harder to fake. It is the user profiles (and associating papers to user profiles) that are the user generated portion. They probably allow users to associate papers to deal with names changes, differing names forms (e.g. full name, or initialed), and names in multiple languages (particularly non-Latin names).--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 17:22, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Google (being Google) finds a lot of publication information by scraping, but the profile pages can be modified manually to a considerable extent. For example, their system might not be able to tell that two different papers are really the same (say, if one is really just a preprint version of the other). So, they offer the option of merging items. It's also possible that a paper will show up in their system with author names missing (maybe if it was cited with an "et al."), so you can claim papers as yours even when the system doesn't automatically find them. In this case, it looks like someone created a profile entirely by claiming papers from other people. We've got soil bacteria, psychiatry, oncology, control theory, some pure mathematics ... The common factor appears to be that an author on each was named "Rifat".

talk) 21:16, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete per User:Spiderone's and User:Eostrix's comments above. ––FORMALDUDE^(talk) 17:43, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nominator fails
  WP:MUSICBIO. DMySon (talk) 19:02, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per above. Also there's "cross-wiki self promotion"; deleted twice on arwiki; created by Rif.Rifat (locked gloablly due to the cross wiki abuse) and Rifat Hasan Rabbi (blocked on arwiki as the master of the previous sock) --Alaa :)..! 20:33, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the nomination and
  talk) 21:32, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per above. ~Yahya (✉) • 07:41, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above nomination. — Masum Ibn Musa  ^Conversation 08:17, 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 delete. ✗plicit 14:44, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

30-point rule

30-point rule (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 should be deleted or merged to