Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 June 30

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was There is consensus here that the list article is a reasonable one to keep; as has been correctly pointed out below, individual items on a list need not independently meet WP:N. The notability of the list as a whole was not addressed in the depth I'd like, but I think there's sufficient demonstration of analogous lists to keep it for the moment. The notability of individual prisons has not been demonstrated here.. There is consensus here that the list article is a reasonable one to keep; as has been correctly pointed out below, individual items on a list need not independently meet WP:N. The notability of the list as a whole was not addressed in the depth I'd like, but I think there's sufficient demonstration of analogous lists to keep it for the moment. The notability of individual prisons has not been demonstrated here. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:58, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of prisons in Rajasthan (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 article with no encyclopedic value and the only sources are used come from the State Government of Rajasthan's website. All this article is nothing but text and has no links or transclusions anywhere. It's very doubtful that these prisons listed will have their own pages created. This is part of an ongoing issue with HariSinghw who is creating articles and templates simply because he can. He argues that there is a legitimate reason to keep them, but never provides any other than that these places or exists or because it does it should be given a page. He has also argued that on another article he has created that's currently subject to an Afd. The template he created for this page is a subject of a Tfd as well. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:50, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because the user who created List of prisons in Rajasthan has created similar articles with related subjects. These articles also don't fit general notability guidelines:

District Jail, Bhiwani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views

)

District Jail, Rohtak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views

)

Central Prison, Ambala (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views

)

--WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:53, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I had seconded the PROD that was initially placed on this page, and looked into it further along with having looked into several articles by this user in the past. This does not pass GNG, and indeed is part of a larger pattern. Individuals have been trying to inform him how to improve his creating and citing process and understand wiki guidelines and I'd recommend further encouragement. --Tautomers_{(T C)} 00:16, 1 July 2021 (UTC) Striking --Tautomers_{(T C)} 00:43, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Also I have noticed HariSinghw seems to sign things with the name "I love to be honest" via formatting as opposed to his username. --Tautomers_{(T C)} 00:20, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:25, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:25, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the list as a valid redirect target for the jails, which should be redirected, which I hope doesn't confuse the closer. I think HariSinghw doesn't quite understand notability, which is why he took the counsel at ANI and created a long article which I stubbed as there was no evidence of encyclopedic value or notability. I didn't AfD Ambala at the time as I wasn't sure how WP:Articles for deletion/District Jail, Jhajjar was going to close. He's editing in good faith, but I am not sure he has the competence required yet to edit the English Wikipedia. Those issues could be solved if the jails were notable, which they do not appear to be as there is no sourcing with which to improve them. I wouldn't be against deletion, but there could be a usable list to point these to. Agree that this is not currently a usable list, but I think that's an issue that can be solved by editing. Star Mississippi 00:29, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep Per the remarks that Mississippi made, I am revising my vote from delete to keep as that is a valid case for keeping it. The reason for weak is because I think Draftify may be a good secondary option. If there are is only one or zero valid jail articles then there is no point in keeping a list of only one item. Another option might be to merge the list into a more general list since this may be too specific. Either way, Keep for now and include links to wiki articles that are ultimately kept and properly cited. If it proves later down the line to be invalid or worthy of some change then it can be channeled that way. --Tautomers_{(T C)} 00:43, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Actually, I think this AfD would need to be remade? It's also a bundle with 3 other jails. While they are on the list they aren't list themselves, even though those jails would also likely fail and AfD as they are basically the same as all the others made by this user. My comments still stand but I think the procedure with this might be slightly gummed up. --Tautomers_{(T C)} 00:51, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Central prison, ambala is about 150 years old jail, India was independent on 1947 and has historical value. Many freedom fighters were kept here. Notable topic for wikipedia. I love to be honest (talk) 12:53, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't provided any evidence that they were imprisoned and who exactly? You have to support claims with sources which you haven't done with this article. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 13:57, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Clean up to wikipedia quality standards. Redirect associated prison articles to the list. Polyamorph (talk) 13:21, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep this list article, and delete this individual jails articles (all created bypassing AfC).
  Central Prison, Ambala may be old, both no information has been provided at that article about its history. David notMD (talk) 16:19, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Comment: At one time there existed Wikipedia:WikiProject Correction and Detention Facilities but it is defunct, with no articles created during its existence. However, for the US and UK, there appears to be existence of lists of prisons, and prisons having individual articles. See for California: List of California state prisons; and for all of UK: List of prisons in the United Kingdom. Regardless of these examples, individual prison articles need to meet minimum standards. David notMD (talk) 16:32, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank You Sir an individual prison article is also eligible for the retention of page because these jails are made to keep criminals, under trial prisoners away from the civilized society. It is not a promotion for the purpose showing that this is jail and you may reside here and these articles will have preventive and deterring effect that a state has many jails and these are overcrowded and there is need to do a lot by the police state to control the crime in the society. It is mirror for the policy makers to prevent these crimes in the society. I love to be honest (talk) 10:19, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • • Unfortunately none of that has any relation to Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Please read those and make your arguments based on that. Star Mississippi 03:02, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - subject to improvement. There is no general requirement that every item on a list has itself to be notable or have its own article - see
  Central Prison, Ambala, has just enough sourcing to be kept as a stub, after Star Mississippi's overhaul (and I think that HariSinghw is correct that because of its age there will be more to be added) and that the others could redirect to the list somewhere, perhaps to their locations (but not to this list, since they're in a different state - which is one more reason why this is a dim nomination bundle). Ingratis (talk) 13:19, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Comment - I've added a couple more refs to
    Central Prison, Ambala (incl the hanging there of Gandhi's assassin). Ingratis (talk) 13:42, 5 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.

Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD

)

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

This is a center within

• Let me say first that I have a conflict of interest in that I was a member of the Center for five months in 1990. I agree that the material should be merged into
  The University of Georgia as a sub-section of the section on research. It's importance clearly merits a mention there and the current article is not too long to be merged as a whole. --Bduke (talk) 23:18, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:30, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:30, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:33, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to
  WP:GNG on its own, but worth mentioning in the parent institution's page. PohranicniStraze (talk) 17:52, 7 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 00:46, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

This article has been around since 2015, but I have to ask, Why? It purports to deal with a street in

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:24, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:34, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No notability asserted, and I cannot find any reliable sources to support any claim of notability. Appears to be
  just another street. --Kinu ^t/_c 18:39, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per nominator and Kinu. Appears to be a run-of-the-mill and non-notable subject. — Goszei (talk) 01:30, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Just an
  ordinary street, with no indication of being notable. PohranicniStraze (talk) 17:53, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete I found info that the road actually exists, but nothing more than news of a regional festival [[1]] and an unfortunate petroleum station [[2]]. This wouldn't even work as a redirect to Siddharthanagar, the alternate name of Bhairahawa, since there's zero substantive content that can be sourced. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 00:23, 8 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 00:47, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sexual Witchcraft (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 erotic film, lacking significant coverage or other indications of notability per

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:42, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:17, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I looked through several sources directly and could not find anything to help this pass NFILM or even GNG. Compared to other erotic films I have seen this has received relatively low coverage. At the critical reception section, it mentions negative reviews from Dr. Gore's Movie Reviews (which is unreliable as it is self-published and hosted on
  talk) 23:05, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete as there is a lack of reliable sources coverage of this film. For example it has no entry at all at Rotten Tomatoes. Regarding Video Vacuum here it is a blog, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 01:24, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails
  WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 18:07, 6 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 00:48, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sex Pets (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 erotic film, lacking significant coverage or other indication of notability per

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:41, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 00:10, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails NFILM. I could not find any coverage for this from some searching.
  talk) 22:23, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete as there is a lack of reliable sources coverage. For example the film has no entry at all at Rotten Tomatoes and does not pass
  WP:GNG imv, Atlantic306 (talk) 01:19, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Fails
  WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 18:07, 6 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 and cleanup. Daniel (talk) 21:37, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bokani Soko (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 Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Kleinpecan (talk) 22:14, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:34, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is an interesting one. The article has been around for a few years and for most of that time it has had sources. A week ago these were removed by @Bwalyag:. Until earlier this year the article appeared to be about someone whose notability, as a lawyer, looked doubtful. However a search shows that in the last few years Mr Soko has made a major career change and is now unquestionably notable as a close associate of the Zambian President who is being named in major corruption scandals (see 1, 2 and 3) so I think the recent rewrite and removal of sources is part of a piece of reputation laundering designed to give the subject a ‘clean’ high-ranking Google hit. Mccapra (talk) 03:02, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep, but needs a rewrite. Per the sources cited by
  WP:GNG. PohranicniStraze (talk) 18:02, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment I see 1, 2, and 3. Mccapra (talk) 18:38, 7 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 00:48, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Manner 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)

Unable to find any in-depth coverage focused on this record label; does not meet

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:08, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:08, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:08, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete --Jklamo (talk) 08:22, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom -Xclusivzik (talk) 15:36, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nommed; maybe even A7 speedy? --DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:31, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, does not meet any Wikipedia guideline. Geschichte (talk) 03:53, 7 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 Pennsylvania Hall (Philadelphia)#Monday, May 14, 1838. As noted in my relisting comment: consensus is that we should not have an article about the wedding in addition to the articles about the spouses. Because several people suggest a selective merger, which is not possible after a deletion, redirecting the title to where the event is already covered is a sensible compromise, to allow merging from the history. Sandstein 10:45, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The abolitionist Weld–Grimké wedding (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 event does not appear to be covered in-depth in any reliable sources. Of the four references currently in the article, only one is primarily about the article topic, and it is a WordPress blog post. I don't see anything more than passing mentions on Google Scholar ([3], [4]), and the best I can find elsewhere is this 2-minute video from a local PBS affiliate. Wikipedia does not seem to have many articles on weddings, and most of those that do exist are about royal weddings. Some of this content could be merged into

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:46, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into
  (shoot) 18:29, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I am rewriting the article and adding additional documentation. deisenbe (talk) 09:37, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@

Theodore Weld and Angelina Grimké, where it will probably get more exposure anyway. Rublov (talk) 11:39, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

@

Sarah). But the two, as a team, get their own article. And if you can have an article on a team of two sisters, why not about a husband and wife team? But it seems strange, to me at least, to write an article on their relationship, their romance, their partnership. "Wedding" is the traditional place to discuss the bride and groom together, and it was a most unusual wedding, with joint white and black ministers, denounced by the Quakers, of all people. It was capped by the worst case of arson in American history as of that date (except for the British burning the Capitol and the White House during the War of 1812). The grand new venue, in which Angelina was the last speaker, while the windows were being broken, whose inauguration all of these out of town visitors were there to attend, was burned to the ground, and rioters prevented firemen from saving the building

. That article I did write, and I'm proud of it. If it hadn't been for that riot and arson there probably would have been more on the wedding itself.

Anyway, I've put Under Construction on it. As you probably know, that is deleted automatically after inactivity, and I'm asking you to postpone any decision and action until I'm done, at which point I will take the Under Construction down. It won't be long. deisenbe (talk) 13:33, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG. Rublov (talk) 14:08, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

What do you think of expanding it to be "The Grimké–Weld marriage"? deisenbe (talk) 14:25, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would echo Kncny11's reasoning that the topic, whether narrowly or broadly construed, is intrinsically tied to Weld and Grimké. Page view data shows that

The abolitionist Weld–Grimké wedding in April 2021. If this article were merged into those pages, the information would be much more visible and useful to our readers. Rublov (talk) 14:57, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete There is no logical redirect target and any pertinent information can be merged into either of the bride/groom's articles. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 00:28, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@

As of today it is 4 times longer. I don't mean to imply that it is therefore better or that the objections have been adequately addressed, just that I'm working on it. deisenbe (talk) 11:16, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Still not convinced that this was a notable event, or that it qualifies for an article. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 12:13, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:49, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of most-liked YouTube comments (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Does not meet

Note: This discussion has been included in the

ping}} on reply) 19:04, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

ping}} on reply) 19:04, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete All of the sources appear to be OR.
  Talkback) 19:14, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:50, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:50, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not discussed by independent sources at all, barring a single Daily Dot article on the top comment. Yeeno (talk) 🍁 20:00, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Does appear to be
  original research, and wasn't able to find good sources/support for it. --Tautomers_{(T C)} 00:27, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per above. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 03:40, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I didn't finish that much of the page, and i'm really bad when it comes to sourcing stuff. Can you please help me find some? Pwnda (talk) 04:47, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Obviously original research. Ajf773 (talk) 09:17, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• What is???? The likes of the comments are all accurate, i dont get it?? Like the proof is directly from YouTube itself Pwnda (talk) 11:11, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@

ping}} on reply) 17:46, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

synthesis

, a disallowed type of original research.

If you can find articles from reputable news outlets ranking the most-liked YouTube comments, or if such articles are published in the future, it will be possible to keep the list, but otherwise there unfortunately isn't a place for it on Wikipedia, and I'd suggest publishing it somewhere else on the internet. Still, thanks for your work on the list—I know it's not fun to have a page you've worked hard on put up for deletion, and I hope it doesn't discourage you from continuing to contribute elsewhere. The List of most-liked YouTube videos page gets thousands of views per day and needs some updating and some additional citations, so that might be one related page to improve if you're interested. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:03, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Sdkb. Adding on to what Sdkb said, Pwnda, if you want to work on the list on an alternative outlet, I've archived it.

ping}} on reply) 21:49, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you. Pwnda (talk) 08:07, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above.
  LSGH (talk) (contributions) 10:01, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete: Definitely an
  WP:OR. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 15:00, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. If anything is non-notable cruft, this is. JIP | Talk 13:16, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per
  talk 03:00, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete as original research and non-notable. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:39, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per
  WP:OR. NavjotSR (talk) 07:30, 6 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.

Leonard Rowland (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 mayor of a Welsh town. A quick search in The Times digital archive brings up only one other hit besides the brief death notice (no obituary). Presumably, a local paper would have more coverage, but, nonetheless, consensus has generally been that being a mayor does not grant sufficient notability.

Note: This discussion has been included in the

Talkback) 18:54, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

Talkback) 18:54, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep. He was knighted. This clearly meets the criteria of
  WP:ANYBIO #1. The consensus that it does is clearly illustrated here; no person with a modern knighthood has ever been deleted at AfD. If the British state considered him notable enough to be knighted in the modern era, when knighthoods are not that common (only about 100 people a year in the 1920s, in a country of many millions), then who are we at Wikipedia to decide he is not notable enough for a project that includes myriad people who would never come close to receiving such a high honour? -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:29, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Has an entry in UK Who's Who https://doi.org/10.1093/ww/9780199540884.013.U216491 Piecesofuk (talk) 15:12, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per
  past outcomes. We have tended to keep persons who were CBE. Bearian (talk) 00:36, 8 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.

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

)

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

Evidently no more than a genealogical entry, but Wikipedia is not a genealogy database. See

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 18:43, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 18:43, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 18:43, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 18:43, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. There's no coverage in reliable sources sufficient to meet
  Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:40, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Merge and Redirect to John_Eliot_(statesman)#Richard_Eliot, George_Elliott_(surgeon), or maybe Granville_Elliott#Family. Suriname0 (talk) 16:48, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge relevant details to
  Granville Elliot. Furius (talk) 18:10, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Merge to an appropriate target. Bearian (talk) 00:37, 8 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) FollowTheTortoise (talk) 15:20, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

)

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

I first started a discussion about deleting all "Minister of State for..." and "Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for..." articles earlier this year

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
  Talk to my owner:Online 18:42, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 18:50, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 18:50, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 18:50, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 18:50, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 18:50, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural keep, without prejudice to individual renominations. This is an enormous list, and it seems to me that at least some of these positions have probably received substantial coverage. In any event, there are too many differences between the articles to make this a valid
  Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:47, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Thanks for the feedback! I can absolutely sort individual nominations. FollowTheTortoise (talk) 08:16, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural keep per Extraordinary Writ. Far too many to consider all at once, and even the nomination statement makes it clear they are a disperate set (some cite... some don't). I also suspect that if any are found not notable individually that merges and redirection will be appropriate but the targets are going to be different. I strongly recommend spacing out individual nominations over a couple of weeks to avoid overloading AfD participants and allow each article to be fully considered on it's own merits (there is going to be a limited pool of interested editors with subject knowledge). Thryduulf (talk) 08:49, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Will do. Thanks for the feedback! FollowTheTortoise (talk) 09:19, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• (after edit conflict) Isn't "a summary of the office holder's responsibilities and a list of past incumbents" exactly the type of information that we would expect to be in an encyclopedia? The nominator seems to have the idea that we shouldn't have information that can be found elsewhere. That is a complete reversal of our notability and verifiability rules.
  Phil Bridger (talk) 09:23, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  I absolutely understand and agree with that point. The two grounds that I am arguing under are WP:NOR and WP:NOTE, sorry for not explaining that clearly enough. FollowTheTortoise (talk) 09:33, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural keep, without prejudice to individual renominations. As per others, I think the merits of the individual articles varies too much to be considered together. Could you re-nominate separately please? Bondegezou (talk) 10:58, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for the feedback - I will do, when I've got a bit of time. FollowTheTortoise (talk) 11:42, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, Is it considered ok to just delete this many articles all in one go? Editors have spent many hours editing them so I don't think its very courteous. I have probably spent the most hours creating and editing these pages so this is my comment: 1. These lists can ONLY be found on Wikipedia. I know this because I made many of them. Researching these lists were very difficult, so the idea that the lists can be easily found is just wrong. The government website does not have historic lists of these officeholders and it wasn't easy writing them up. 2. There's clearly things of note in these articles and the links work. The ministerial offices were being searched for, and the original redirects to the department was misleading I thought. And the one example you use,
  Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, is the only article which has had a name change and has a sentence referring to the government website, so I think it's a bit unfair to single that one out. 3. These articles were made in the style of the Cabinet Ministerial roles, (Secretary of State (United Kingdom)), some of these ministerial offices have even been members of the cabinet; so why are they less notable? The Offices exist just as much as the other ministers. 4. These lists are probably more notable than the civil servant lists in the agencies and departments of the US Federal Government. These articles are in a similar style, with the history of the role, the responsibilities of the office, and the holders of office listed. Moondragon21 (talk) 14:29, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Hey @

  Minister of State, Ministry of Justice because it was an article that I have edited and so I know it well. I mentioned that in the linked discussion on the WikiProject, but didn't here. Thank you for replying and I am sorry for any offence caused. FollowTheTortoise (talk) 15:18, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Hi FollowTheTortoise. No worries, thanks for replying. Moondragon21 (talk) 16:23, 1 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:57, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Samurai (2010 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 television film, lacking significant coverage or other indications of notability per

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:50, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:50, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:50, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails both NFILM and
  talk) 22:39, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per nom. Give this one the chop. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:30, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No reviews or any other significant coverage. Adumbrativus (talk) 04:40, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails
  WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 18:07, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was no consensus. Notabilty seems to rest upon the reliability of Nerdly as a source. I find no consensus regarding this, and therefore no consensus in this deletion discussion. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:36, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

)

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

Only claim to fame is that it went to a few film festivals - Manchester and Dundee - but this doesn't show

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. — Bilorv (talk) 10:27, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — Bilorv (talk) 10:27, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. — Bilorv (talk) 10:27, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not meeting any
  WP:NFILM criterias. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 13:02, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment: So far I'm leaning towards a weak keep for this one but I keep waffling on this. Eye for Film is generally seen as a RS - Anton Bitel wrote for them for a while - and there's some coverage from places typically seen as RS for the most part. It's just not a really solid keep for me and I'd rather keep plugging away for sourcing and clean up the article before I make any final judgement. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:50, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. I found another review, this one by Nerdly, which is a decent source. Not the strongest possible one but decent enough for RS purposes. I think that there's just enough here to justify a weak keep on my part. I'd like for there to be coverage from more strong mainstream horror/fantasy sources but what's here is fine for the most part. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:18, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your research, ReaderofthePack. I think Nerdly is borderline usable, and EyeForFilm too, but these are not enough for me to support "keep". Horrified looks not to pay its contributors, and ModernHorrors is written by "volunteer content creators", so I'm not seeing these as contributing to notability. Does this roughly match your assessment? — Bilorv (talk) 21:06, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• That's pretty much the gist of it. If I had one really good, strong source it'd be better but right now the sources are all sort of "meh". Enough on the decent side for a weak keep but only just. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:07, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete. Several unreliable sources do not make a topic notable; had it won an award, a notable cast or crew, or achieved something historically significant worth noting these sources might have sufficed. But (at least to my knowledge) as none of those are true for this film this article relies solely on its coverage, and it largely lacks RS. EyeForFilm is the only undisputed reliable source, and while that is certainly good, it is not enough on its own imo.
  talk) 12:52, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep as there is enough coverage in reliable sources to just pass
  WP:GNG such as Nerdly and EyeforFilm, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:01, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep Per Atlantic306's rationale. Donaldd23 (talk) 11:49, 4 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. Consensus is that the topic may not have done or accomplished anything notable, but that the topic is notable per available sources (GNG) 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:39, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Somerset, Duchess of Beaufort (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

If this person did anything that makes her pass

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 18:17, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 18:17, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 18:17, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 18:17, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. <sarcasm>OK, but she was bridesmaid at the wedding of Prince Albert, Duke of York. How much more notability would you want?</sarcasm> Athel cb (talk) 18:37, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A quick search reveals tons of secondary source coverage. In particular, two academic articles about her plant cultivation habits: [1], [2]. Suriname0 (talk) 14:09, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, there are two Mary Somersets who were both Duchess of Beaufort. Suriname0 (talk) 14:13, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep notable: obituary published in The Times Piecesofuk (talk) 16:35, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I can't find a copy of her obituary on-line, but assuming it was by-lined, I believe that unpaid obituaries in prestigious newspapers are de facto evidence of notability. I'm also surprised that we don't have a page about her daughter-in-law, Caroline Beaufort, another notable noble.[5] pburka (talk) 23:32, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. An obituary in a major newspaper does not automatically confer notability -- it may be presumed, but if nothing else actually turns up providing SIGCOV then it fails the requirement for multiple such sources. Moreover, the obituary in question does not have a byline (I have Gale access through my library) so its independence is not clear. JoelleJay (talk) 19:44, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per sources dug up using her titled name. JoelleJay (talk) 01:21, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Striking my keep !vote since I haven't been able to turn up any other SIGCOV yet... JoelleJay (talk) 20:04, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The Independent featured as "visit the life of a notable figure. This week: Caroline Beaufort." There’s enough coverage to pass WP:SIGCOV. Generally being a member of the royalty, even minor royalty, makes you notable by birth as evidenced by the sources. VocalIndia (talk) 14:22, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • VocalIndia, a) one article with SIGCOV is not enough to pass GNG; and b) that article is about Caroline Beaufort, not Mary Somerset. JoelleJay (talk) 17:26, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Here's a link to a British Newspaper Archive search for the "Duchess of Beaufort" in the 1930s https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/search/results/1930-01-01/1939-12-31?basicsearch=%22duchess%20of%20beaufort%22%20-dowager&phrasesearch=duchess%20of%20beaufort&notsearch=dowager&exactsearch=false&retrievecountrycounts=false Piecesofuk (talk) 18:26, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, that does indicate a lot more coverage than what's in the article. Perhaps "Mary Somerset" just isn't used in the media so it didn't turn up more articles. I will reassess after looking through the newspaper hits. JoelleJay (talk) 22:04, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, the BNA seems like a great resource. I don't have access, but by scanning the excerpts it looks like while most of the mentions are

WP:ROTM

(openings, benefits, meetings with the Queen and the like, but don't miss the exciting encounter with a riderless horse), several are more in depth. Here's the biosketch provided by one of the more promising of the articles:

The Duchess of Beaufort who, with the Duke, is staying with the King and Queen at Sandringham, is rarely seen in London, preferring a quiet country life at Badminton amongst her horses, dogs, and flowers, and taking personal interest in the rearing of poultry. “Master and Mary,” as the Duke and Duchess are affectionately known to the members of the Beaufort Hunt, are great home lovers, fond of sport and all outdoor life, not very interested in the rush of social gaieties, averse to publicity and having their photographs taken. Occasionally they visit their property in South Wales, traveling usually by train, which stops to pick them up and put them down at Badminton, and merely reserving their compartment. The Duchess, a niece of the Queen mother, dislikes fuss of any kind, and, when visiting South Wales to open a bazaar or perform some other duty for charity, she prefers to take family lunch or tea in a quiet little house staffed with one maid rather to be feted in a mansion and waited upon by butler and footmen.

— Bylined as "from a woman correspondent", "Duchess of Beaufort", https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0000038/19370127/135/0005 (Belfast News-Letter - 27 January 1937)

Not much to go on, but certainly a reasonable little bio if more can be found like it. Suriname0 (talk) 16:40, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per those above, obituary in The Times and other sources (some I have added and am searching for me) which establish
  talk) 21:58, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Thanks

significant coverage: an independent source that goes into detail about Mary. I'm having an immense amount of difficulty finding sustained discussion of her life and actions, and not just passing mentions (e.g. [1]). Since it seems you may have access, do any of the book sources you added have more significant coverage? There may be other sources such as [2] that may have sustained coverage, but I personally don't have access to them. It seems like the most likely sources to have SIGCOV would be a section in one of the books on Queen Elizabeth e.g. Young Elizabeth (Williams), but I can't personally verify that. Suriname0 (talk) 00:47, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep. An obituary in The Times alone is sufficient for notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:25, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Necrothesp, just a note -- it is not sufficient, there is still the MULTIPLE requirement (which she does seem to meet). JoelleJay (talk) 16:46, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, but this is not true. An obituary in a major national newspaper has always been held to be sufficient for notability at AfD. I don't recall ever seeing anyone with such an obit deleted. There is a very clear consensus, and Wikipedia runs on consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:16, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I searched "Duchess of Beaufort" from 1924 to 1975 in the British Periodicals archive (using ProQuest, which I access through my university), and there are indeed many hits, although they are all non-SIGCOV and routine (non-encyclopedic). The deepest coverage was some anecdotes in a short, un-bylined obit in The Field vol. 269, Iss. 6990, Aug 1987: 60. I'm withdrawing my keep !vote now since I share Suriname0's concern about the lack of SIGCOV. JoelleJay (talk) 20:04, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I mean to be honest I'm glad we seem to be keeping the article, since I am almost positive that the detailed coverage exists, most likely in some dense biography of Queen Mary or Elizabeth. She regularly corresponded with the Queen, and lived with her during WWII! Just a shame its so hard to uncover relevant sourcing for her. Suriname0 (talk) 03:37, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - based on the sources already in the bio, she was notable. Bearian (talk) 00:39, 8 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) 21:38, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Playing Father (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 or other indications of notability per

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:24, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:24, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails NFILM. All I found was one review but it looks questionable at best [6] and I thus believe it to be unreliable.
  talk) 22:03, 2 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 00:50, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rules of Love (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 or other indication of notability per

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:23, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:24, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:24, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails
  WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 21:31, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete fails NFILM.
  talk) 22:18, 2 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:59, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Remote Control War (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 or other indications of notability per

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:40, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:40, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails
  WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 21:30, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete fails NFILM.
  talk) 21:51, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Every individual episode of a television documentary series is not automatically notable enough for its own standalone encyclopedia article just because it exists — the notability test requires properly sourced evidence of its significance, such as critical attention and/or significant award nominations. To be fair, this is listed in
  WP:GNG, and since I haven't been able to find adequate sourcing to compile a complete episode list for Doc Zone the way I have for its successor series CBC Docs POV, I can't suggest redirecting this title to Doc Zone either. Bearcat (talk) 21:09, 3 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.

Update: Redirect deleted as, subsequent to this AfD closing, the name of the person has been removed from the target article. Daniel (talk) 08:12, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Per

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. DanCherek (talk) 17:33, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. DanCherek (talk) 17:33, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. DanCherek (talk) 17:33, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - given Volkers was the coach of a number of major Australian swimming stars is there a broader article his name can be redirected to as per
  WP:ATD? Deus et lex (talk) 09:55, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Perhaps
    WP:BLPCRIME: editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured, and if he's removed from that section, he's not in the rest of the article. I checked other articles that mention Volkers, but they are just individual athletes he has coached, his successor, a case prosecutor, and an awards table, so not particularly good redirect targets. DanCherek (talk) 02:40, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Comment - Thanks - I'd be comfortable for a redirect to Swimming Australia but with no merged content to avoid violating WP:BLPCRIME. Deus et lex (talk) 04:38, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• No redirect The only mentions of
  WP:UNDUE) at the prosecutor's article Margaret Cunneen#Notable cases. In the Samantha Riley article it mentions without citation "She had failed a drug test, and was only exonerated after her coach Scott Volkers admitted to giving her a headache tablet which contained the banned substance." In the Australian Sport Awards article it mentions in a table, his 1995 "Coach of the Year" award. There does not appear to be a viable target for any redirect. Overall, if he is not notable, aside from the allegations, then the article should be deleted; it doesn't seem that such deletion would cause any loss of information, outside of the allegations. Also, per the nominator's (@DanCherek:) rationale, the section Notable cases in the Margaret Cunneen article, and the mentions in the Swimming Australia article should be cleaned up. --Bejnar (talk) 20:57, 8 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.

IPOPT (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 Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:05, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Both references are primary sources. However, secondary independent sources are available, for example: https://books.google.com.co/books?id=_ZtBDwAAQBAJ (ISBN 9783319583563) and https://books.google.com.co/books?id=Jm4eAQAAIAAJ (ISSN 0077-8923). There are several sources about GAMS and NLP covering the subject. Dr.KBAHT (talk) 16:46, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 21:40, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kasia Babis (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 author failed to substantiate WP:N for this page. I tried googling around but the person in question seems to have no notable achievements. In one election six years ago she received below 1000 votes. She also runs a YouTube channel with fewer than 50,000 subscribers. Zero notability, article for deletion. LordParsifal (talk) 16:32, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
  Talk to my owner:Online 16:56, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:58, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:58, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:58, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:58, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I see a few sources (e.g. this, this and this) that seem like significant coverage. The article was also created by the Polish-speaking sysop Ausir. I would tend to trust them on their gauging of notability here, both for speaking Polish and for being a sysop, who are presumably familiar with WP:N. --- Possibly ☎ 18:25, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Possibly, and I have added support for
  WP:CREATIVE notability based on reviews of her recent work as an illustrator/graphic novel artist, i.e. Guantánamo Voices: True Accounts from the World’s Most Infamous Prison and Re:Constitutions. Beccaynr (talk) 18:41, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete It's her job as an illustrator to make and publish illustrations. Should we feature every illustrator and graphic artist on Wikipedia? HuffPost is not a reliable and reputable source, the two other sources are minor articles in minor local Polish websites that I also think are not reputable sources. And again, bravo for posting an illustration to New Yorker, but that's just her job as an illustrator. Not encyclopedic, not notable. In fact, if you make a web traffic analysis, you'd see that it's her YouTube content that generates the most traffic. But even then, her YouTube channel does not have even 50,000 subscribers, standing at just below 37 thousand. This person is beyond non-notable. As a matter of fact—I am also Polish. LordParsifal (talk) 22:30, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Striking delete as this user is also the nominator. You don't get to !vote twice. pburka (talk) 23:41, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

By the way—it's crucial to inform that per WP:N, trivial mentions do not merit notability. Notability can be expressed through wide public attention, political importance or a variety of orders, awards or titles.

This person has not scored a single veritable achievement. This person's closest approach to notability was being nominated for a municipal literary award, but subsequently failing at acquiring that award and falling out of the process. So as it stands now—zero achievements, zero notability.— Preceding unsigned comment added by LordParsifal (talk • contribs) 22:40, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment per
  WP:CREATIVE. Beccaynr (talk) 22:46, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment You kind of played yourself—because exactly per
  WP:BIO is very clear on what notability is—with emphasis on the word "significant." This person has not attracted any significant attention not just in the form of pure traffic, but also soft attention (reputation, coverage) and hard attention (awards, adaptations etc). There really is just nothing significant there. That's all there is to it. LordParsifal (talk) 23:20, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment I apologize if I have been unclear. Per
  WP:CREATIVE#3, she has played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work [has] been the primary subject [...] of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. For example, she contributed art^[1] to Guantánamo Voices: True Accounts from the World’s Most Infamous Prison,^[2][3][4] which was named one of the The Best Graphic Novels of 2020 by The New York Times,^[5] one of the 2021 Great Graphic Novels for Teens by the Young Adult Library Services Association (YALSA),^[6] and awarded the 2021 Lynd Ward Graphic Novel Prize from the Penn State University Libraries.^[7] In addition, she illustrated the Re:Constitutions graphic novel written by Beka Feathers,^[8] and according to Publishers Weekly, "this educational comics guidebook to constitutions takes on a commendable international scope", and "Helped along by Babis’s charming if somewhat overly smiley character drawings, the team goes beyond the basics to tackle more substantial examples (such as how Rwanda’s 2003 constitution required 30% of government decision-making bodies to comprise women) and urgent particulars (“the constitution is only as strong as the people who use it”)," and it is being released in July 2021.^[9] So in addition to the other sources in the article, it appears that her notability is sufficiently supported. Beccaynr (talk) 23:39, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Comment updated with additional sources and information. Beccaynr (talk) 00:19, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Yeah I understand the criteria correctly, including #3. She does not meet any of the criteria. In #3 it explicitly says played a major role. Did she play a major role? The BOOK was spearheaded by Sarah Mirk who has conducted interviews, compiled all the information and wrote the entire text (besides the introduction which was written by Omar el Akkad). The text is adorned with illustrations by 12 different artists. The book is divided into 14 sections with the first two sections illustrated by one Nomi Kane (who does not have a Wikipedia page) and the last section being a collection of art made by a Guantanamo prisoner. All other artists illustrated one section each. One other illustrator that got highlighted by the Brooklyn Public Library (here: https://www.bklynlibrary.org/item?b=12359307) is Gerardo Alba. Also no Wikipedia page. Actually, all illustrators besides, who woulda thunk—Kasia Babis—have got no Wikipedia page of their own. Here we come to the conclusion—the major role was played only by Sarah Mirk, while this person called Kasia Babis has no business being featured on Wikipedia. All the illustrators were commissioned decorators and neither one of them in particular propelled the book to a recognizable status. Given the way things are, Kasia Babis (alongside other illustrators) merely deserves a passing mention on the Wikipedia page of the book, and not an entirely standalone article of her own. Oh wait, the book doesn't have a Wikipedia article of its own either. Only Sarah Mirk does.

Anyway. I hope this concludes the topic and closes speculation whether the person in question fits any criterium or not. Last but not least: there are plenty of artists in this world, many of whom have illustrated very important works. But on Wikipedia, illustrators tend to be featured only when their work is featured in very important pieces of culture, and when it's extraordinarily recognized as valuable and indispensable—like for example Steele Savage of Edith Hamilton's "Mythology" fame. And not some second-rate illustrator of second-rate books. LordParsifal (talk) 00:43, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - the first deletion nomination was kept per these sources, none of which have been mentioned here or used in the article: The Post Italiano, The Canary, Tanzania's Daily News, Bustle, Metro Argento Surfer (talk) 13:15, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's also The Nation, which lists her as a distinguished cartoonist of her generation. It's a passing mention, but it's still something. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:34, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indeed, the first deletion nomination was conducted inadequately on a technical level. Trivial mentions do not merit notability, per
      WP:CREATIVE LordParsifal (talk) 18:14, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • I think everyone here is aware of your opinion. You don't need to
        WP:BLUDGEON every person who comments. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:37, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
        ]
• Keep. Contrary to the claims above,
  WP:BIO does not require "anything, even one thing, extraordinary or significant about the person." Instead, a person is notable if they've been the subject of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Babis clearly has been. pburka (talk) 23:38, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment She has not been the subject of significant coverage. Trivial mentions do not count as notability. Neither do mentions in a few minor articles with 0 comments and shares. I would be pleased if you shared me just one criterium from
  WP:N that she meets. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LordParsifal (talk • contribs) 15:16, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Per
  WP:SECONDARY commentary, such as The Nation, noted above, and articles including Bustle and Metro, which are entirely focused on her work. Beccaynr (talk) 15:41, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Per
  WP:GNG. These articles neither discuss the person of Kasia Babis in depth, nor do they discuss her at all, they are just pop-magazine content dumps and as such they're trivial. I would be really bewildered if this article was left to stay here. LordParsifal (talk) 12:36, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

This is a typical example of why

WP:BLUDGEONing is counter-productive: "While they may have some very valid points, they get lost due to the dominant behavior and others are less likely to consider their viewpoints because of their behavior." pburka (talk) 17:16, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

• keep as has been stated by numerous users here, there is coverage in many sources, more than enough in this discussion alone to warrant notably—blindlynx (talk) 21:04, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• keep meets GNG per the sources noted in this discussion. Theredproject (talk) 00:55, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• keep coverage in multiple reliable sources, as listed here, meets
  WP:GNG Niftysquirrel (talk) 14:38, 7 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) 21:41, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor Ware (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 has failed to remedy situation regarding the need for additional citations, which thus effectively causes it to fail

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
  Talk to my owner:Online 16:15, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 16:56, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 16:56, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 16:56, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep, due to the addition of multiple independent and reliable sources focused on her and her career. Beccaynr (talk) 21:04, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep meets GNG. If you have a problem with the sourcing, then improve the article. Theredproject (talk) 00:57, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. We have tended to keep a win/place/show for the biggest TV talent shows (American Idol, America's Got Talent, Britain's Got Talent). Bearian (talk) 00:43, 8 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) 21:41, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Questionable if they meet the basic criteria in

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
  Talk to my owner:Online 16:14, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 16:57, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 16:57, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 16:57, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 16:57, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep as he had 400 + episodes over eight years as a major character on The Bold and the Beautiful, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:52, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: That, in my opinion, is a truly weak reason for keeping the article - if this is the case, why is it not detailed considerably in the article? For a stub, it's become quite stale... GUtt01 (talk) 07:46, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep While the article is in poor shape currently, it doesn't necessarily mean the subject isn't notable. He meets the GNG at least for plenty of non-trivial newspaper coverage of his soap opera roles, stage roles, music career in Europe and work as an impressionist. A sampling of those findable via google search: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. Plus there are more behind paywalls on newspapers.com and newsbank.
  GoldenAgeFan1 (talk) 09:24, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep As the former Thorne Forrester on B&B, Trachta got significant coverage in old soap opera magazines that are not readily available in the digital age. This is a clear case where sources exist, even if they're very hard to find. Gildir (talk) 06:29, 8 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 01:38, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Gifted High (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 cannot find any

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Sdrqaz (talk) 14:49, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:22, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:22, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete In no way is this at all notable. Either in relation to
  WP:NORG. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:43, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete – appears to have been
  Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:58, 1 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 Gideon's Daughter. Daniel (talk) 21:42, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

)

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

Song is not notable, per

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:27, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:39, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:39, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to
  WP:NSONG per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 05:52, 3 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) 21:42, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Quantum Apocalypse (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 or other indications of notability per

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:23, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 16:58, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 16:58, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails
  WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 21:30, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Fails NFILM and probably GNG. All I found were database entries and similar unreliable sources.
  talk) 22:06, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep The author may be unfamiliar with notability criteria, please contact that user ang give a chance to improve the article. Regards, DPdH (talk) 14:58, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Original editor has not contributed to Wiki since 2018 and has never added onto this article since creation. Either way, the film has not indication of notability after multiple searches. BOVINEBOY2008 15:02, 3 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 03:09, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Vulpis (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 singer/songwriter/producer. There is no significant independent coverage to be found, nor other evidence of passing

This page used to redirect to David Dobrik, but Vulpis only gets a passing mention there that doesn't provide any information about him. I'd prefer deletion over restoring the redirect. Lennart97 (talk) 14:14, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 14:14, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 14:14, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The article's creator has only ever worked on this article so there may be a personal connection or conflict of interest. Also, I agree with the nominator on the problem with the previous redirect. As for Mr. Vulpis, he is a longtime behind-the-scenes guy with a lot of credits but I can find nothing beyond basic listings in the works of others, and he does not
  promotion. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:56, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Mr. Joe Vulpis is a person and is it wiki media's standard to have information on the actual person - the redirect page is not Joe Vulpis. It is redirected to another person. Mr. Joe Vulpis has a producer -produced songs that charted with current works and collaborations also on Wikipedia. in addition, the page is still being added with more content. more works produced that charted. More Radio charts. This page is still being updated. thank you. Special:Contributions/M1321

• Delete - purely promotional article. Article creator might be a case of
  WP:MUSICBIO. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:56, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per
  WP:BLP. If you remove the content sourced by PR and fluff, there's nothing left. Bearian (talk) 00:45, 8 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.

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

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

Tagged since 2014 for failing

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. LordPeterII (talk) 11:09, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. LordPeterII (talk) 11:09, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:09, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MacBreak (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 does not meet

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 17:43, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 17:43, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 17:43, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Major hosts like
  cnet, Wired, etc) [8][9][10] I'll also point out that the nom in the first AfD played shenanigans by actually !voting twice in their own AfD and were the only "delete" votes, drawing it to an inappropriate "no consensus" close. Oakshade (talk) 19:03, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

@

WP:GNG because they do not "address the topic directly and in detail" and there are no sources that have "more than a trivial mention" of the podcast itself. I would also like to note that it doesn't matter if the hosts are notable or not because the deletion discussion is on the subject of the podcast not the people. I also think that whether or not the previous deletion discussion was fair or not is irrelevant to the current discussion. TipsyElephant (talk) 01:20, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

The only reason I mentioned the inappropriate "no consensus" close of the previous discussion is because you brought it up in your deletion rationale. Thanks for the other info. Oakshade (talk) 02:56, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned the previous nomination to demonstrate that I was complying with guidelines 4 and 5 under

WP:BEFORE and to provide context for this AfD. I think a decade is sufficient time between AfDs and I do not feel that my concerns have previously been addressed in adaquete detail. TipsyElephant (talk) 11:19, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

• Comment I was recently introduced to the "notability fallacies" and I believe the previous arguments to keep the page fall under these fallacies. Saying that the hosts are notable is an argument that the podcast should
  WP:TRIVCOV. TipsyElephant (talk) 14:04, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• You've already made these arguments. Let other editors weigh in and see if you've built a consensus to delete this article.Oakshade (talk) 16:25, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: The article needs some clean-up by removing unnecessary parts and primary sources like Twit.tv. Other than that, it's good enough to pass
  WP:GNG with reliable sources indicated by Oakshade and in the previous AfD. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 15:00, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• @Superastig: would you mind linking to one or two of the sources you believe demonstrate notability? As far as I can tell the only source from the previous AfD that isn't a permanently dead link is this one, which dedicates less than a dozen words to the topic of MacBreak. TipsyElephant (talk) 18:41, 5 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 13:07, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Perfect Student (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 or other evidence of notability as described at

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:48, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 17:00, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 17:00, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I (perhaps embarrassingly) spent nearly forty minutes looking for sources for this film because the title is really generic and I wanted to make sure I did not miss anything … but all I found were databases entries and blogs (which are unreliable sources), indicating that this fails NFILM.
  talk) 19:24, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete the sourcing is way below the level we need to show that a film is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:47, 6 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 13:08, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My Santa (2013 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 television film, lacking significant coverage (sources are just mentions that is being shown) per

Note: This discussion has been included in the

^Talk∕_Contribs 11:11, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

^Talk∕_Contribs 11:11, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete per nom. The only citations are TV showtime listings which does not help it pass NFILM or even
  talk) 12:35, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete My search came up with nothing but passing mentions. The only source that significantly covered this film at all was an unreliable source (Fandom Wiki). Fails WP:NFILM.--
  🌀 13:37, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete No substantial coverage. When our article is basically a verbatim quote from an add for the film, there is no real reason to have it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:22, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 08:31, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nguyễn Phúc Bửu Chánh (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 page has been deleted twice from Vietnamese Wikipedia. The only relevant RS that I have access to is a story in the Cornell Daily Sun. The subject apparently gave a speech to some Cornell students -- and the reporter accepted what he had to say at face value. The Nguyen Phuc genealogy table at Royal Ark doesn't give anyone of this name, so he may not be a royal at all. He has nonetheless named himself regent on his website, because, you know, why not? This site is full of self-promotional claims. The most amusing one is that he is preparing "international imperial expediting action forces." So be careful out there. 99to99 (talk) 06:49, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
  Talk to my owner:Online 06:51, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:03, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:03, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]