Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 May 23

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. Go Phightins! 13:04, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Brownie Brittle

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

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

A non-notable food product. The refs in the article are press releases, paid for stories or similar. Before is returning a small time food product. Tagged promo and paid for. Desertarun (talk) 21:09, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:23, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:23, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - apparent product of
  WP:TNT at least. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:40, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete and SALT these brownies. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:00, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

LOLLOLOLOL I love sea salt brownies. Missvain (talk) 03:05, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I love some brownies, but this small batch brand from Florida will have to go national to earn its own article. Missvain (talk) 03:05, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To Missvain: In fact this is sold at Costco. Please Check this. It seems to be a popular item. Also they are covered in WSJ and NY Times, not sure if you missed those.Lesliechin1 (talk) 23:00, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep this article has coverage in WSJ and NY Times, two of the biggest publications to meet notability guidelines. Passes
  WP:GNG. Not sure if above editors missed this. "Apparent UPE" is not a valid reason to delete a page, but if it sounds like an advertising, that can be used as a reason. If that is the case you can also Draftify or improve article. Lesliechin1 (talk) 22:54, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment I just discovered that the item is sold at Costco and somewhat a of a cult following according to many articles. Check these additional sources: [7], [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] and store images here that verifies it is the same product. ATTN Spiderone, Missvain and Rhododendrites please recheck updated article. Lesliechin1 (talk) 23:04, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate your sources. I actually have seen them, now that I see the bag. Maybe this could fly

WP:BASIC, but, most of those listacles (ugh) are just passing mentions. Even the NYTimes article is a passing one sentence mention. Frankly, I think someone should just write a brownie brittle article. Missvain (talk) 23:40, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete promotional article, lacks in-depth coverage supporting that it meets
  WP:NPRODUCT. MrsSnoozyTurtle 11:19, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 21:52, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Groenendijk

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

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

Current fourth division player, only played one match in the Eerste Divisie, I can't find anything on him

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 20:38, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 20:38, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 20:38, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 20:38, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:46, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - there is longstanding consensus that scraping by on NFOOTBALL with one or two appearances is insufficient when GNG is failed so comprehensively, as is the case here. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 11:29, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, doesn't appear to be on a career trajectory that would lead to more appearances.--Mvqr (talk) 12:24, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails
  WP:GNG due to lack if significant coverage. Doesn't matter if he has appeared in a match where everybody got paid, if nobody writes about him then he is non-notable. Alvaldi (talk) 14:38, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Weak keep passes GNG, seems to me there is enough third party coverage to keep the page.--Ortizesp (talk) 21:00, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep: I think there might be enough to keep here. Need to do a refresh of this page for that. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 19:50, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Nowhere near notable as a footballer, explicitly not a professional player per his college tenure, and not significant coverage. Geschichte (talk) 09:46, 30 May 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 00:01, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Pond

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

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

Article about a pond that does not meet

Note: This discussion has been included in the

Rusf10 (talk) 21:35, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

Rusf10 (talk) 21:35, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

• Given this and the Small Pond (Innsbruck) (AfD discussion) I have tried to find out about the gardens and grounds of Ambras Castle, in which article is the obvious place for information about things such as these ponds. There's not much that I can find, beyond that the gardens overall are "in the English style". Neither of these merit their own articles. There's a "Grand Pond" in Newfoundland near St. George's Bay, but its more modern name is Grand Lake (Newfoundland and Labrador). Uncle G (talk) 11:18, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have
  talk) 00:02, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete absolutely nothing notable about this.
• Delete fails
  wp:sigcov. GhostDust (talk) 05:25, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete: Doesn't meet notability criteria. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 06:04, 27 May 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 00:10, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dayakar "Day" Veerlapati

Dayakar "Day" Veerlapati (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 “businessman” who lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of him thus doesn’t satisfy GNG. A before search doesn’t turn up any cogent reliable sources, most hits were user generated sources. Most of the sources used in the article aren’t even related to the subject. Celestina007 (talk) 00:42, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • Keep A lot more hyperlinks that direct the reader to other Wikipedia articles was added, as well as greater inclusion of sources throughout the article. Links to broad topics such as locations and universities are now included in the article as well. The current sources included in the article are crucial references to Dayakar's impact and influence in his community. A source from the Journal of Global Information Technology Management(a highly regarded academic journal) was also added to exemplify Dayakar Veerlapati's significance. Dayakar is worthy of a Wikipedia page because he has been written about in mainstream independent media outlets, including the St. Louis Post-Dispatch (the major daily newspaper in the 17th largest U.S. city), the St. Louis Business Journal, Ingraham's Business magazine (also an independent publication), Inc. magazine and the peer-reviewed academic publication Journal of Global Information Technology Management. [[User:Adhithi c[Adhithi c]] (talk) 15:21, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 00:42, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 00:42, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 00:42, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 00:42, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nomination. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 09:12, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. No significant coverage. -- Ab207 (talk) 14:55, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for lack of notability. The Journal of Global Information Technology Management mention is an interview and therefore non-independent (not a GNG source). The Post-Dispatch mention is in its entirety "Chesterfield-based information technology firm S2Tech is celebrating its 15th anniversary." It's trivial coverage and doesn't mention Veerlapati whatsoever. The bizjournals.com articles are less immediately objectionable but still resemble business churnalism. The Ingram's article is a "top 50" list that plainly does not constitute significant coverage for GNG purposes. A BEFORE search did not reveal compelling evidence for notability. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 07:53, 26 May 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 Anthony Kiedis#Early life.  JGHowes  ^talk 22:58, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blackie Dammett

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

)

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

Non-notable actor who's claim to fame seems to be as the father of Anthony Kiedis. Previously deleted in 2017. A Google search brings up nothing that would suggest he has obtained notability since the last AfD. John B123 (talk) 20:20, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. John B123 (talk) 20:20, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. John B123 (talk) 20:20, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Dammett had a major roll in five films which are listed in the Filmography chapter of the article. Dammett is listed in the IMDb database: [13]. Notable enough, me thinks. Kind regards, Saschaporsche (talk) 20:29, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Drug Dealer #3" in Lethal Weapon and a bartender in The Boys Next Door are hardly major roles. --John B123 (talk) 20:38, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Anthony Kiedis#Early life, which is where it was originally redirected, and then protect from recreation. Clearly does not meet GNG or NACTOR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:42, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Anthony Kiedis#Early life, per Onel5969. Chirota (talk) 00:47, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect and salt: Fails
  WP:NACTOR (notability as an actor). Furthermore, nothing notable happened since the first redirect until his death, which is no reason to recreate the page. Wyliepedia @ 04:15, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep: The standard is subjective, and a hyper-strict interpretation of this standard conflicts with how notability is actually employed in practice. There are dozens, if not hundreds of actors whose "notability " is similar, whose careers are of similar duration, and are credited with similar appearances throughout film and television who have their own pages on Wiki. I will not cite even one here for fear someone will endeavor to erase them. IMDB credits Blackie with 36 appearances over a 14 year period (1977-1990). On the episode of Magnum PI he was the primary villain, more than just a backdrop character. Furthermore, what is the benefit of forcing a reader who wants to research Blackie to leave Wikipedia? Isn't the point of this whole enterprise to garner views, trust, and keep Wiki a go-to place for information? Keep Blackie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.144.181.165 (talk) 15:23, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Just pointing out that most reasons to "keep" above are discouraged at Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions: "he's got an IMDb", "other bios of lesser notables have articles", "it helps build the web". Wyliepedia @ 20:00, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Out of respect for all of you who make Wiki work, I did take time to read through the whole "arguments to avoid section" prior to posting, and carefully considered my statments against the examples provided. As you state, it seems I am invoking the "What about article x?" failure in my post, but if you read more closely I am not employing that logic. I am questioning the interpretation and application of "notability" that appears to be motivating this nomination to delete.

  Whether Blackie "has had significant roles in multiple notable films and television shows" is the matter up for debate I think. The IMDB reference isn't a violation of the arguments, it clearly demonstrates he has a body of work which is debatably venerable and meets the Wiki standard. The "Just notable/Just not notable" section discourages "Delete as non-notable", yet other than the negative "Google test" posted by the nominator, that is essentially the only reason provided for this nomination. I attempted to demonstrate otherwise.

  The precedent exists. The readers and contributors have spoken with the sheer volume of entertainer articles whose significance is on par with Blackie Dammett. That collective basis is the convention that exists, for better or worse, and IS THE standard that defines "significance" as used in the notability guidelines. I feel Blackie meets that standard and deserves his own page, not just because "There's an article on x, and this is just as famous as that..."

  With gratitude for all your efforts, I humbly submit my rationale for keeping Blackie's page and wish you all good health. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.144.181.165 (talk) 22:52, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That seems to me another rehash of "What about article x?". To clarify the reasons for the nomination, for which your speculations are way off: The subject was determined to be non-notable by the community in 2017, and as such shouldn't be recreated unless something significant has happened since then to show notability. A Google

WP:BEFORE search doesn't show anything to change the previous AfD outcome. The precedent here is in fact articles shouldn't be recreated once deleted at AfD unless circumstances have changed. This is not the case here. The question here is not whether Blackie is notable from his film career, it was previously agreed he wasn't, but has anything significant happened since the last AfD that now changes notability. To keep recreating articles because you disagree with the previous AfD is not the way it works. --John B123 (talk) 07:39, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep —¿philoserf? (talk) 05:51, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Anthony Kiedis. Not notable enough for a page. Popcornfud (talk) 11:04, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the newspaper and other print coverage of his acting work. Granted, the articles to be found in these searches are mainly about films that starred him, but the fact that he was discussed for being a primary or supporting role in these movies at all by reputable sources indicates his notability. If the filmography section stating he had "bigger" roles in some notable films is true, he is a notable actor for that plus the coverage I provided. Remember, he had Hollywood roles mostly within a past decade, so obviously we're not going to find much coverage of time after that besides the usual Variety obituaries whenever anyone from Hollywood dies. I'm not stating Strong Keep just yet because, like I said, the coverage is mainly about films he was in. 👨x🐱 (talk) 19:48, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also found a few articles from NYTimes and LATimes discussing him as starring in notable films, such as the National Lampoon, Burning Secret, and Running on Empty. 👨x🐱 (talk) 22:25, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see any of these articles "discussing him", just a passing mention. --John B123 (talk) 23:56, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • You didn't look at the sources enough. This newspaper article criticizes his accent in a main role of a movie he was in. This Daily News article also spotlights (albeit negatively) his performance. Many of the results bring him up as having a main role in the National Lampoon movie, such as [14] and [15]. 👨x🐱 (talk) 02:01, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Like I said, they are articles about films he was in, not necessarily mainly about him, so I understand the skepticism. However, it does show he is notable for more than just being a father of a member of a famous rock band. At least somewhat. 👨x🐱 (talk) 02:20, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I have added references to this article and I think they're valid. - EclecticEnnui (talk) 05:52, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect. The sources only validate he existed; if you take out the parts that can be represented in Anthony Kiedis#Early life, or is BLP-violating gossip, there's hardly anything left. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:13, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect appears to be the elegant course. If notability is not inherited, neither is it conferred by parenthood. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:01, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect As per Ritchie333. MrsSnoozyTurtle 11:13, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Shouldn't an admin be able to see the previous deleted page and compare this version to see if it is similar enough to be deleted under CSD G4? If it is the same then it should be deleted for that reason, but if it is not the same, then bringing up the previous AfD is not really a valid reason for deletion (there's always the possibility that it was non-notable at that time but is notable now). ✌️ The owner of all 🗸 18:29, 31 May 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. After extended time for discussion, a consensus to keep has become clear. BD2412 T 20:26, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Arpita Chakraborty

Arpita Chakraborty (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 People-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 21:56, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 21:56, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 21:56, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:58, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails
  WP:MUSICBIO. Some playback singing doesn't put her qualifying NMUSIC. Chirota (talk) 00:43, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete Probably
  WP:TOOSOON. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 09:14, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep per
  WP:SINGER no. 10, "Has performed music for a work of media that is notable" (multiple notable films) Furius (talk) 11:15, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep passes
  WP:SINGER. DJRSD (talk) 13:57, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Singer on a TV series theme song. Meets
  WP:SINGER. Lesliechin1 (talk) 22:12, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep She is the singer for multiple notable songs and notable films. As per
  WP:SINGER no. 10 it helps to pass the notability, Myconcern (talk) 18:19, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

*Delete she is effectively a voiceover artist and does, indeed, fail

• Why would being a voiceover artist make her automatically non-notable? Furius (talk) 09:15, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah that's a strange comment. Voiceover and playback is especially popular in Indian film. Sometimes the playback artists are more famous than the actors! Missvain (talk) 14:44, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly a product of my ignorance of Indian cinema. I'll shut up now. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 03:51, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Did my due diligence and I'm convinced she passes
  WP:GNG. Missvain (talk) 14:44, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Notable singer, meets
  WP:NBIO. MrsSnoozyTurtle 11:11, 31 May 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.

X-class lifeboat (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

Rusf10 (talk) 17:16, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

Rusf10 (talk) 17:16, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete per nom.
  talk) 17:18, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

Rusf10 (talk) 17:18, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep (and merge) as I explained when I deprodded this, this should be merged not deleted as it is an important aspect of an encyclopaedic topic - this boat is an integral part of the operation of the
  US Coast Guard which (AIUI) carries out the equivalent role in the USA as part of its remit. Thryduulf (talk) 19:25, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

@

Rusf10 (talk) 23:07, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Now read my whole comment again and respond to what I actually wrote. Thryduulf (talk) 00:31, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep/redirect (title) and merge (content) to
  X-class lifeboat and XP-class lifeboat (and perhaps Y-class lifeboat) into a combined article covering these similar/overlapping subjects. (Each subject may not have independent notability, but there would seem to be sufficient sources/precedence for a combined entry.) Guliolopez (talk) 20:34, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. Of course it's notable. That "volunteer organization" is the British national maritime lifesaving organisation with a royal charter and lifeboat stations throughout the British Isles. You make it sound like a little one-rowing boat service in some minor town. See Category:Royal National Lifeboat Institution lifeboats. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:32, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@

Rusf10 (talk) 23:07, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

I have done. Because it's notable. Just as any type of major equipment used by a national organisation of this kind would be considered notable. And it was quite legitimate to question your use of the term "volunteer organization", which suggested you didn't really know what the RNLI was or the status and importance it (and therefore its equipment) holds within the UK, as has also been pointed out to you by Thryduulf. I have no objection to merging, but I certainly do to deletion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:52, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Sources for Y-class ([16] and [17]) could be used here too. Not that they are particularly great. LizardJr8 (talk) 23:35, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge as per Thryduulf. MrsSnoozyTurtle 11:09, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, definitely notable. I don't normally do nationalism, but this is a major piece of equipment used by the national sea rescue organisation of an island country of 60 million inhabitants, whose naval history over a 500-year period was rivalled only by those of Spain, the Netherlands and France. The sea is a vital part of the UK's history, and even now a vital part of our culture. Loads of people wouldn't consider going to the coast without dropping a coin in an RNLI donation box. It's built in to how we are. Everyone in the UK who's so much as dipped a toe in the sea will stand firm behind the RNLI. I appreciate it's not automatic that the historical and cultural relevance of the RNLI should make a page on a lifeboatman's wellington boot automatically notable, but this particular inflatable is quite a serious bit of kit. Merely being inflatable doesn't stop it from being notable. It's hard to work out how to define notability in maritime vessels, but it seems to me that a boat can be notable because it does something notable, or is operated in notable numbers by a notable organisation, as well as merely for being a big lump of metal. Elemimele (talk) 16:16, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is still an inflatable boat and notability is

Rusf10 (talk) 16:38, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Yeah, I was rather metaphorically singing rule-Britannia there, which isn't what AfD is about, and I apologise. But my genuine point is this: we really need to look at what makes a class of boat 'notable'. I don't think notability should depend on inflatability. The original request for deletion is based on three things: that it's inflatable, that it's run by a volunteer organisation, and that it isn't well cited. The first two are irrelevant (in my personal opinion). The last one is valid (though generally we're discouraged from deleting merely because of lack of citation). It's also hard for a class of boat to get itself cited in good secondary sources because the only people who write about sorts of boats are boat-fanatics; boats are inevitably going to be in fairly niche magazines that can easily be written-off as fan-zines. I used sports-people as a parallel. They're notable if they appeared in a major game/event (notability is correctly achieved by what they did, but interpreted in a fairly inclusive way, because they don't actually have to be on a winning side, appear more than once, or be someone anyone's heard of). Just as a footballer becomes notable because Manchester United chose to field him in a big match, I felt a boat might achieve notability because an important organisation chooses to field it in an important role. That's presumably the justification for the Combat Rubber Raiding Craft (which is a specific class of boat, not a general term like 'lifeboat') and the LCRL boats, which are of military relevance and fielded by the US military. But I would settle for Merge if there's somewhere good to merge it, though based largely on the lack of information on the page. But this makes me a bit nervous because we should decide deletion based on notability, not on whether the page is well-written and complete. Oh, it's hard for boats! Even actual instances of boat generally tend to be notable because they sank in an interesting way. Even the Titanic wouldn't be notable by its size alone. I will, however, have a look to see if there are any citations available for the X-class life-boat because citations do seem highly relevant. Elemimele (talk)

I'm really sorry to keep writing. Looking into this, it's a bit messy, because there is also a well-written and relevant article on Inflatable rescue boat which lacks any citations whatsoever, but does refer to a page on the RNLI's Y-class boats. Now the Y-class boats superseded the X-class in the same role, and if one isn't notable, nor is the other. Here's a constructive suggestion: that a page be created for all classes of boarding-boat operated from a traditional life-boat, which could replace the X- and Y-class pages, and anything else anyone else finds. The concept of having a mini-lifeboat launchable from a major-lifeboat is surely notable, as a tool in sea rescue, and this would avoid a multitude of highly-specific little pages with not much on them?? Just a thought... Elemimele (talk) 20:32, 3 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. RL0919 (talk) 19:29, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FileHold Systems

FileHold Systems (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 ROTM software business, sources cited are all press release regurgitations and the like. Previously deleted, so couldn't be speedied; recent PROD was rejected, so here we are at AfD. Fails

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:17, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:17, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:17, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:17, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As per nom. MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:23, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: coverage is weak and reliable sources not found. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 06:19, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:05, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Zeze Oriaikhi-Sao

Zeze Oriaikhi-Sao (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

BLP of a successful businesswoman that really lacks reliable independent sourcing. The two telegraph sources are the same profile-style interview, and the rest are primary sources and others that don’t look reliable or independent to me. Notability is not demonstrated. Mccapra (talk) 19:12, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 19:12, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 19:12, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 19:12, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Telegraph sources might fulfil
  WP:GNG but count as one for the purpose of requiring multiple sources. The other sources are blogposts or otherwise of questionable reliability. 15 (talk) 22:02, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - There are no sources that contribute towards the
  _(talk) 09:33, 24 May 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 Withdrawn after agreement from all participants to merge.. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:37, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lovejoy (band)

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

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

Does not appear to meet

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 17:41, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 17:41, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Found some news articles about them (not sure how reputable this particular site is): https://www.sportskeeda.com/minecraft/tommyinnit-karl-jacobs-join-minecraft-community-celebrating-launch-wilbur-soot-s-band-lovejoy and https://www.sportskeeda.com/minecraft/what-legend-wilbur-soot-praises-minecraft-streamer-georgenotfound-one-take-performance-taunt-music-video

I've added them to the page

talk) 15:32, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

How do i fix this then? I really dont know how it works. -pwnda — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pwnda (talk • contribs) 09:13, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@

notability requirements. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:04, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Im in the proccess of adding more sources, and information currently Pwnda (talk) 10:47, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I added alot more info, and sources in the article. Does it meet the requirements now? Pwnda (talk) 12:15, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please see

WP:RS. Tweets, YouTube videos, and Reddit posts do not contribute towards establishing notability, and should usually be avoided as sources. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:19, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

What are reliable sources then? Like news articles? Pwnda (talk) 15:50, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I linked the policy above, but to provide it again:

WP:RSP also provides a quick list of commonly-used sources and whether we generally consider them to be reliable. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 17:11, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

But most of my sources are official. Such as the streams being literally by Wilbur Soot. (the reason why the stream are vods on youtube is because wilbur has privated/removed past streams (including this vod) in his twitch) It doesnt count even though the sources listed directly feature some sort of relation to the band? Like ive also seen some articles that uses youtube videos as sources Pwnda (talk) 15:04, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not to be blunt but, official doesn’t mean reliable. Wikipedia has much higher notability standards than websites such as Fandom and others, and needs reliable sources such as published news articles due to its frequent usage as an educational source. Hope this helps :)

talk) 17:45, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

I cant really find any news articles, or any of the commonly used sources that relates to Lovejoy. Pwnda (talk) 15:08, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal
I think this page should be merged into

I agree to merge it to Wilbur Soot, if i get an answer with the last posts. Pwnda (talk) 15:43, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GorillaWarfare, sorry for the ping but is it okay if I merge the page into Wilbur Soot? Thanks :) Millee (she/her) (talk) 11:04, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, no objection from me. I'll withdraw this AfD since there's agreement among all participants. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:37, 28 May 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. — The Earwig (talk) 17:48, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Messenger Premier League

Messenger Premier League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Sources are all self published, can't even

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 16:38, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 16:38, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This is a bizarre one: I haven't been able to verify even that the cited sources are real. It seems possible that this is a hoax, but even if it isn't, the dearth of sources clearly result in a GNG fail. (Even if the books, which don't appear in WorldCat, GBooks, or anywhere else, exist, they're still self-published and thus not independent.) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:38, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• That's fair - I didn't bother checking the ones in the article since they obviously didn't count towards GNG. It's possible this is a hoax. SportingFlyer T·C 18:53, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support deletion. References seem to all be books, with no ISBN listed. I did a quick search, looking up the titles of the books referenced in
  one of the longest living hoaxes on Wikipedia. Holy moly. Wizzito (talk) 19:28, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment - Adding to my previous message, Googling the title of the article only comes up with unrelated references, this
  hoax museum. Wizzito (talk) 19:31, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was keep. Geschichte (talk) 09:47, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fischer's

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

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

Fails

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 15:46, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 15:46, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 15:46, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 15:46, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Sources include Mainichi Shimbun (a national newspaper of Japan), Nikkan Sports (affiliate of national newspaper Asahi Shimbun), NHK (Japan Broadcasting Corporation), Vanity Fair, Daily Sports, Oricon News etc. which are reliable and should establish notability. Almost every source is about the group with "フィッシャーズ" (Fischer's) in its title so I do not see a WP:REFBOMB issue. 太西 (talk) 13:09, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Unquestionably notable, and more than sufficient sourcing to establish the fact. PianoDan (talk)
• Keep Per above enough sources availble to pass notability bar. Zackdasnicker (talk) 04:52, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 09:49, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Kerr (football manager)

Ian Kerr (football manager) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Contested PROD. The subject fails

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Mattythewhite (talk) 15:19, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Mattythewhite (talk) 15:19, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Mattythewhite (talk) 15:25, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Mattythewhite (talk) 15:25, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non-notable Dexxtrall (talk) 15:21, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 15:45, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - the best I could find was this so I'm not seeing
  WP:GNG at all. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:53, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete It appears he was the Scarborough youth coach and caretaker manager between Ray McHale and Russell Slade, which is why there's not really all that much on him: he had a 1-2-5 record in October 2001. SportingFlyer T·C 19:04, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 20:59, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Doesn't meet notability criteria. Non notable player. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 06:30, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 09:51, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Master of Media in Journalism and Communication

Master of Media in Journalism and Communication (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Thinly veiled advertisement for a program only offered at one University. There is one sentence which discusses the actual program the rest is a history of the

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 15:19, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 15:19, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 15:19, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 15:19, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 15:19, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete Ignoring the padding out about the University, the subject matter fails
  WP:GNG. --John B123 (talk) 15:30, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete, no indication of notability. Per
  WP:UNIGUIDE, individual academic programs at universities are not normally notable unless they have substantial history/reputation, which does not appear to be the case here. The title is too generic for a redirect to be appropriate. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 16:02, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete I trimmed a site called en.wikipedia.org being used as a source (five times). What's left does not amount to a hill of beans. --- Possibly (talk) 02:13, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. There is no proof of notability.
  LSGH (talk) (contributions) 02:23, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete subject fails to meet
  talk) 15:51, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete: coverage is weak and reliable sources not found. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 06:36, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 19:25, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Turbo cooking

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

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

Appears to be a

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:47, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Pure OR essay. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:08, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Rogermx (talk) 21:49, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Well it seems that I do Turbo Cooking all the time, but didn't know it was called that. However, a Google search does not bring up to much about this technique. They are all about a "Turbo Cooker." Lesliechin1 (talk) 22:47, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Useful and informative content, but abjectly fails
  WP:GNG and exists as original research validated by synthesis. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:30, 30 May 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:46, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ellis Communications

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

)

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

Asides this which is merely a profile and in itself doesn’t count nor prove notability, there isn’t sufficient significant coverage in reliable sources discussing the organization, hence the organization does not satisfy

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 14:58, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 14:58, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 14:58, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 14:58, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 14:58, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non-notable business Dexxtrall (talk) 15:25, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails
  WP:ORG Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:44, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete fails
  talk) 07:24, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete agree with nom. Doesn't meet
  WP:ORG. Lesliechin1 (talk) 08:24, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Redirect to Raycom Media, which was the purchaser of this television station group. The group lasted just three years before being sold itself. There is, however, SIGCOV in broadcasting trade publications of the 1990s (such as those on World Radio History). Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 03:57, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per nom. A non-notable copr. Kolma8 (talk) 16:50, 27 May 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.  JGHowes  ^talk 23:01, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Borough of Middlesbrough

Borough of Middlesbrough (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 duplicate of Middlesbrough and Middlesbrough Council. The borough is not distinct from Middlesbrough, it is Middlesbrough. There was long standing consensus for this until this article was created in February. Eopsid (talk) 09:35, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:19, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The borough is distinct and Middlesbrough has borough status. The borough has villages notable and can have a borough page. Chesterfield is the same with Staveley Old Whittington and Brimington. What notable settlements do Hartlepool and Darlington have which Middlesbrough doesn't? The article is about the wider borough and not the town itself. We had this in February and it was a census of keeping it. So why is it an issue again? You seem to be nominating any article I've made for geographical purposes? And it satisfies
  talk
  ) 11:21, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

This is only the second article of yours that i've nominated for deletion, the last was

WP:UKDISTRICTS

it has 6 points and if it matches these then we only have one article. Each of these is true for Middlesbrough except the one about current boundaries where the current boundaries are smaller than those in 1974, which I think gives greater strength to it being one article.

1. The built-up area closely matches the boundaries of the district with no rural hinterland
2. There is a lack of other distinct settlements in the district
3. The
   ONS population
   for the settlement is roughly the same, or larger than the district
4. The current boundaries of the district are long-established and predate reforms in 1974
5. There are very few or preferably no civil parishes in the district
6. The district does not cover a geographically large area

The difference with Hartlepool and Darlington is that they cover a much larger area with rural hinterland and are larger than the 1974 boundaries, so they meet the criteria for distinctness in

WP:UKDISTRICTS needs updating anyway because it links to a deleted (now redirected) article. Eopsid (talk) 11:51, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Eopsid which redirected article is listed at UKDISTRICTS? Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:15, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ONS population links to

List of largest United Kingdom settlements by population which was deleted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of largest United Kingdom settlements by population 7 and a half years ago and is now a redirect. Eopsid (talk) 19:37, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep (ec) The place has a complex and shifting history, detailed in We Are Middlesbrough: Where and what is it? which includes the
  WP:PRESERVE. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:58, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

That linked article is more about what county its in. It doesnt dispute that the current borough and the town are distinct. It says "But in 1996 it was governed by its own unitary authority again, Middlesbrough Borough Council." which implies its governing itself and that Middlesbrough is the Borough of Middlesbrough but then goes on to say its part of other larger areas. There is nowhere in that BBC article that implies Middlesbrough Borough is larger than the town. The local government history can and is covered in the Middlesbrough article. There is nothing in the Borough of Middlesbrough article which isn't already in Middlesbrough Council or Middlesbrough except for parts in the council section which should probably go in Middlesbrough Council. I'll add them there. Eopsid (talk) 12:26, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actually only things I couldn't find in the other articles were unsourced so I'm not changing anything Eopsid (talk) 12:31, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

None of that is a reason to delete anything and so my !vote stands. There is a distinction between the borough and the town. I myself live in Ealing and there's a separate page for the London Borough of Ealing which includes other towns and villages such as Acton, Hanwell, Greenford and Southall. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:11, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't really a distinction. Its more like Luton or Southend-on-Sea where we have one article for the borough and the town. Eopsid (talk) 16:43, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Luton article is

WP:NOTPAPER applies so that we can take as many pages as we like for such rich and complex topics. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:43, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep 2 articles, there are 3 entities here, the town, the district and the district's council. There was a consensus (although weak) to keep this separate from the town at Talk:Middlesbrough/Archive 1#Borough split. However I'd recommend merging the council article into the district article per Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about districts#Local authorities since most of what you would want to say about the council you would also want to say about the district so we don't need all 3 and RailwayJG agreed with this suggestion. Alternatively like Plymouth this could be redirected to the town and any content moved to the council's article. I'd slightly prefer the 1st since it allows the unparished area distinction but I'm also OK with the other since as noted most of the points at UKDISTRICTS are satisfied for a single article. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:21, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd merge the council page to borough because Chesterfield for example has Chesterfield Borough Council but because it contains Staveley which has a town council and Brimington with a parish council. it can stand alone. Middlesbrough has a borough council and has borough status. But also I point out. Scunthorpe has a town council but is part of North Lincolnshire. Beverley has a town council but answers to the East Riding of Yorkshire Unitary authority. I think it's important to know the difference between unitary authority and borough. Unitary authority is a single governing council which governs the borough city town etc with the status from a county council. A borough is what surrounds the boundaries of a town or city or a collection of towns and cities etc. Middlesbrough has a borough council. The name meaning borough of Middlesbrough. The unitary authority is the council so the council is both the governing body and the borough. But the borough is different in covering the whole borough of Middlesbrough and the unitary authority covers the legal side transportation etc services.

Another point to mention is the Unitary authority of Blackpool. It covers a borough and a unitary authority. No ruralness neither but some suburbs and villages as well as a BUA. Another is of course Blackburn as aside from Darwen. And some villages not many notable settlements but it's a borough and unitary authority. The other one to mention is Telford it has a borough status and unitary authority yes it's a new town or was but it still was a collection of towns made into one. And another one is as mentioned before Hartlepool. As it has the town and Seaton Carew maybe one more village. But isn't as rural as other boroughs. It's nearly contiguous with Middlesbrough and Stockton on Tees. So I think the Borough page should stay and the council merged into it to form a unitary page with the borough and council in it bit like I did with the borough of Chesterfield.

So Blackpool has one article but Middlesbrough has 2 what is the difference? Eopsid (talk) 18:55, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See User:Crouch, Swale/District split there are less ticks for Middlesbrough as well as having 2 parishes though in both cases the 1st is boarderline. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:15, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eopsid, the same applies to Blackburn it and Darwen aside from being two towns are a unitary authority but they have a borough page because they are a borough and unitary authority. It covers one for both and the council have it's own page. And of course the two towns. Again Blackpool only has one because it covers the town of Blackpool but Blackpool has always been one hughe settlement. The difference with Middlesbrough is it larger and covers a bigger area with parts of Stockton-on-Tees and Redcar and Cleveland almost contiguous with it.

You also made the case that Darlington and Hartlepool have notable settlements. Yet Middlesbrough has suburban villages which are of notice. If they wanted to make a single articles for places like Bolton Bury Oldham Rochdale Stockport Solihull Dudley Walsall Bradford Leeds Wakefield and St Helens. They are unitary authorities in different counties but have all got borough articles because they are metropolitan boroughs. But they still have only one name and that's the main town or city they are named after.

The town is important but so are the neighbouring towns villages hamlets etc. It's not different to Leeds Bradford and Wakefield having their own borough articles and Middlesbrough. Middlesbrough has a defining place on maps and like Crouch, Swale and Andrew have said it passes and changes a lot. So deletion is pointless. And again the borough covers the borough and not the town alone. Hence why I made the article before and other editors took issue with it but nobody has said anything about the chesterfield one.

But Blackpool has parts of neighbouring districts contiguous with it too. It also has almost the exact same population as Middlesbrough and both are part of much larger built-up areas. Although I will concede that Middlesbrough borough is much less dense than Blackpool, but both are still almost entirely urban. There is no massive difference that I can see. Sorry I struggle to understand what you write a lot of the time because you go off on tangents. Eopsid (talk) 22:35, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not a case of "Tangents". It's understanding the difference. A unitary authority is a governing council. A borough covers a town and suburbs or other settlements. It's not a hard thing to differ and Middlesbrough can boast both. The council page doesn't even cover every suburb or village of Middlesbrough and hence why the borough of Middlesbrough page was made. And to cover the district code. There simply put.

But a town can be a borough as well, and a unitary authority can have borough status. Eopsid (talk) 23:22, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen no further input and the current stand is to keep it. Maybe

@

RailwayJG An admin will come in soon and most likely close the discussion as keep. That or they'll relist it. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How an AfD discussion is closed says how these usually work if you are unfamiliar. Eopsid (talk) 16:39, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Still the same as the last two times and it is to keep the article. I am sure it is still the same for @

@Eopsid:, there are unitary authority and borough/district articles which could be called into question but they still like Middlesbrough have notable settlements and lack the greener land you mention with Hartlepool and Darlington.

Burnley Borough Council and Borough of Burnley. These three cover the town, council and borough. Now aside from Padiham

. The borough is not widely rural and quite built up also smaller then Middlesbrough. Not a unitary authority.

Hyndburn Borough Council and Acrrington. The borough mostly covers the towns of Acrrington and Oswaldwhistle

. Two towns but not fully rural. Quite built up and not a unitary authority.

Barrow Borough Council and Barrow-in-Furness. No real notable settlements other then Dalton-in-Furness and Askam and Ireleth

. Much smaller population.

Carlisle, City of Carlisle and Carlisle City Council. Covers only the city of Carlisle and its suburbs. But has two articles for both the city and district.

These were some examples quite a few more with like

• Merge to Middlesbrough or elsewhere as appropriate. Even if the borough can be shown to be somehow technically different as a matter of administrative law from the town it encompasses, that distinction does not matter to the reader. These administrative aspects can and should be covered in the article about the town. We don't, for example, have separate articles about New York City and Municipality of New York City. Sandstein 20:40, 3 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 13:25, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Tyler

Justin Tyler (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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:13, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:13, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete per nom . NO evidence of Notability , almost all the sources are from crappy websites , NO significant coverage on Wikipedia relieble sources Samat lib (talk) 11:39, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Subject fails
  talk) 15:53, 26 May 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 News with Uncle Bob (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 News media-related deletion discussions. Abrilando232 (talk) 02:59, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Abrilando232 (talk) 02:59, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:52, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to
  List of programs aired by GMA Network. No coverage for a stand-alone article. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 18:08, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Redirect to
  List of programs aired by GMA Network. Missvain (talk) 03:07, 25 May 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.

GMA Weekend Report (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 News media-related deletion discussions. Abrilando232 (talk) 03:04, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Abrilando232 (talk) 03:04, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Abrilando232 (talk) 03:04, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to
  List of programs aired by GMA Network - insufficient coverage for a stand-alone article. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 18:04, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Redirect to
  List of programs aired by GMA Network. Missvain (talk) 03:07, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was Draftify. Sandstein 12:43, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Afterlife of the Party

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

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

Film fails

Nothing notable on the film's production. It is

And as

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 06:56, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:20, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify if this is a Netflix film in development that is released, there will be coverage in the future. Until that coverage happens, this should be a draft. I find nothing other than the one thewrap.com article, which is insufficient for an article User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 17:59, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify, per power~enwiki. Looks like it hasn’t received significant coverage in reliable sources yet. A clear case of
  WP:TOOSOON. -Xclusivzik (talk) 23:12, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was keep. Geschichte (talk) 09:52, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chiaki Hayashi

Chiaki Hayashi (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 to meet GNG Saqib (talk) 09:08, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Gaelan 💬✏️ 09:13, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Gaelan 💬✏️ 09:13, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:38, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep a search turns up some independent coverage, some in Japanese such as from Vogue Japan and Wired Japan as well as English sources in Japan Today and Timeout Tokyo. She seems to be notable enough as a Japanese businesswoman to meet GNG. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 15:34, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep - I have a feeling there might be more out there in Japanese language sources. Here is what I found:

Supports GNG:

• "The New Normal interview series: Groups as agents of change" from Time Out
• "Chiaki Hayashi embodies the start-up spirit" from Japan Today
• "ロフトワーク代表取締役の林千晶に聞く10の質問。【世界18ヶ国の働く女性たち】" from Vogue
• "Chiaki Hayashi" from Wired

Supports

WP:BASIC

:

• "Chiaki Hayashi" from Japan House
• "Meet the Unlikely Airbnb Hosts of Japan" from The New York Times

Missvain (talk) 03:15, 25 May 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.