Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 November 8

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< November 07 November 09 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:12, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spy (band)

Spy (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)

Including:

Local band (seemingly no longer active judging by the defunct website), fails

WP:NALBUM. I can't find any significant coverage, or really any coverage at all, even local. Unsourced. Lennart97 (talk) 23:39, 8 November 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 Nomination withdrawn.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) Thepharoah17 (talk) 16:27, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Baghdad (2006–2008)

Battle of Baghdad (2006–2008) (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 tried to PROD this article but then the sockpuppet of the article creator removed the tag. The sockpuppet told me to search for "Battle of Baghdad (2006–2008" and I would see the sources but I didn't see the sources. This article doesn’t look like much of a battle and looks like

WP:SIGCOV. Thepharoah17 (talk) 23:30, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Oppose What is wrong with you? Here are some sources that indicate there were offensives or battles in baghdad. Are you trying to rewrite history and just assume baghdad was completely secured during this period? Stop treating wikipedia as an area to argue and treat it as a place for informations. Here is your sources https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2006/oct/20/usa.iraq, https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/wbna15145106, https://www.thenewhumanitarian.org/report/62310/iraq-sectarian-violence-tears-baghdad-two-parts, https://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/06/world/middleeast/06baghdad.html, https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/news/2006/6/24/iraq-to-discuss-reconciliation-plan “ Iraq’s government clamped a state of emergency on Baghdad and ordered everyone off the streets after US and Iraqi forces battled anti-government fighters” 78.164.218.120 (talk) 16:04, 9 November 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 Flight Centre & salt. Daniel (talk) 23:28, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

StudentUniverse

StudentUniverse (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 deleted this as advertising under a variant title many years ago. It remains a cross between an advertisement and a company web page. It certainly fails the current version of WP:NCORP DGG ( talk ) 23:23, 8 November 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 Acharya (film). Daniel (talk) 23:27, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Neelambari (song)

Neelambari (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)

There is not a reason why as to why this article exists nor are there enough references given for the song SP013 (talk) 23:07, 8 November 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) 23:28, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sand Products Corporation

Sand Products Corporation (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 fail to see how this really passes

WP:PROMOTIONAL, and wikipedia is not a yellow pages. Govvy (talk) 16:30, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:04, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete since there are no
    promotional material at its worst. -The Gnome (talk) 15:10, 15 November 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

List of embassies of Nicaragua. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:13, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Embassy of Nicaragua, London

Embassy of Nicaragua, London (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. All the article confirms is that this place exists. No third party coverage. Embassies are not inherently notable. LibStar (talk) 00:02, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:47, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:47, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nicaragua-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:47, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with
    List of embassies of Nicaragua as a valid alternative as this is useful information. Venkat TL (talk) 17:32, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:19, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:03, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Daniel (talk) 23:28, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of wineries in Missouri

List of wineries in Missouri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not a

WP:DIRECTORY of non-notable local businesses. Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of wineries in Ohio better to list notable locations at the main article Missouri wine. Reywas92Talk 22:54, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was keep. Daniel (talk) 23:29, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of wineries in Kansas

List of wineries in Kansas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not a

WP:DIRECTORY of non-notable local businesses. Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of wineries in Ohio this is better merged to the main article Kansas wine with only notable locations. Reywas92Talk 22:51, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:14, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dibson T. Hoffweiler

Dibson T. Hoffweiler (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 has been unsourced for years. He falls far short of

WP:NMUSIC and I have not been able to locate any third party coverage of him. The subject is unsuitable for inclusion on Wikipedia. Modussiccandi (talk) 21:18, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on

"soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 23:29, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Pitch Studio

Pitch Studio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't appear to meet

WP:GNG. The article itself seems purely promotional with no referencing, and a Google search on my end has turned up zero relevant coverage of the company or the app. ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 21:15, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Delete - The article has no references and I can find nothing to substantiate notability. -- Whpq (talk) 18:23, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on

"soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 23:30, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Institute of Engineering & Technology, Bareilly

Institute of Engineering & Technology, Bareilly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails

WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES Advait (talk) 13:55, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Advait (talk) 13:55, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Advait (talk) 13:55, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:26, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:45, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:45, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note The nominator above nominated 21 articles for deletion in the space of 21 minutes. Whether the sources in the articles are sufficient or not, that is clearly not enough time to conduct a good-faith
    WP:BEFORE search, especially not for institutions like this where the coverage is likely to include stuff which is not in English... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:21, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    @RandomCanadian - The page has been nominated by me after due checks after a user asked me to review a list of pages on my talk page. Its is incorrect to assume that they were nominated without verification, I verified the articles first and then nominated as there is nothing notable with these institutes, the pages merely establish institute existence. I hope the other editors would take an independent view considering the Wikipedia guidelines on notability and the references / citation on record.Advait (talk) 07:28, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Nominator has been blocked for sockpuppetry Polyamorph (talk) 13:22, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete From what I can tell there isn't even trivial coverage of this out there. In the meantime I'm sure people could justify procedurally keeping it. So I'm fine with that being the outcome. I'd probably go that way myself if there was any indication that this notable. There isn't any though and I rather it be dealt with now instead of when it's eventually re-nominated.
    WP:AFD doesn't say nominations by socks have to be procedurally kept anyway. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:38, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:28, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:24, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Daniel (talk) 23:30, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bobbi Starr

AfDs for this article:
Bobbi Starr (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’m renominating this as the previous discussion was tainted by socking and we have seen no real improvement in this since the previous afd closed. This remains a very thinly sourced BLP that fails GNG and N

Spartaz Humbug! 21:33, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Shellwood (talk) 21:36, 31 October 2021 (UTC) [reply]
Yeah, an RfC at RSN believed otherwise.[6] Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:06, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lets address the SMH, which is according to the link a blog so not definitely notable and funny enough for me doesn’t open either in the original or the web citation. Did you get it open? Can you summarise the content, or did you just see the source and decide this page would do? As for the CNBC source, well its shitty clickbait but more important its trivial coverage that in no way is a substantial source that meets the depth of coverage required by GNG. Perhaps rather than just making an assertion you can assess the best sources and tell us why you think they pass the gng in terms of independent, reliable and sufficient depth. Thanks
      Spartaz Humbug! 21:54, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
      ]
WP:LINKROT Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:18, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 19:11, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - She passes the GNG. In addition to some of the sources already mentioned in the article or discussion, she is extensively written about in [7][8] Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:16, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the comments and sources found by ScottishFinnishRadish in the previous AfD. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 09:55, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Should never have been nominated. Starr is discussed at length in several books, for example by Helen Hester in Beyond Explicit: Pornography and the Displacement of Sex, published in 2014 by the
    WP:SNOW also applies. gidonb (talk) 02:58, 12 November 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.

WP:GNG. The arguments of the "delete" side that this is the case here remain unaddressed by the "keep" side, who do not cite any relevant sources, and whose opinions I must accordingly discount. Sandstein 10:31, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Lambert Golightly

Lambert Golightly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails

WP:NFOOTY due to being an amateur footballer playing in an era before the English Football League was "fully professional". More importantly fails WP:GNG due to complete lack of WP:SIGCOV. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 20:08, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:19, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(
WP:BIAS when relisting discussion topics. No Great Shaker (talk) 05:40, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Furthermore, one should ping GiantSnowman if one is inclined to have a go at him. No Great Shaker (talk) 05:41, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You can't invoke IAR willy-nilly for every subject that fails GNG. A mundane sportsman, who played maybe a few games, where that is essentially all we can say about them (plus some bare minimum [birth and death dates] biographical information from primary sources), doesn't seem to justify ignoring the rules here. It doesn't improve an encyclopedia to have dozens of unremarkable articles about unremarkable sportsmen from a century ago; and I don't see what is so exceptional about this one as to justify keeping it while deleting all sorts of other articles routinely for having exactly the same problems as this one, whether they pass NFOOTBALL or any other N(not-magic-password-but-used-as-such-anyway-acronym). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:47, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I also think there are
WP:BLPPRIMARY concerns with this article. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 13:25, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
How does the BLP policy apply to someone who died more than 30 years ago......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:02, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PRIMARY in this context is an issue, with or without the BLP part. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:49, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

WP:NFOOTY, but a lack of overall concensus around GNG. Nothing has been presented to indicate anything approaching significant coverage. Feel that this is a delete given the current input and complete lack of sources, but the NFOOTY / GNG discussion needs more time to be discussed to allow the presentation of sources that satisfy the claim to GNG which NFOOTY presumes.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 22:40, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

There's quite an interesting disconnect between claims that
WP:NFOOTBALL "confers" notability, and competing claims that it merely "presumes" notability. Just so we're clear, which one is true? Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 21:29, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Bring back Daz Sampson - it depends on the context. If we're talking about a pre-internet player, where internet searches will have limited value, we can say that it confers notability. If we're talking about someone who made a handful of FPL appearances in 2011 then disappeared, we could call it a weak presumption of notability. This is because internet searches should give us a better idea of notability in the latter example and, if nothing turns up for them, we could say that the presumption of notability is invalid. That's my interpretation of the current consensus anyway. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:39, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Can you point me to any evidence of this emergent consensus? Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 13:25, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Spiderone and Bring back Daz Sampson: AFAIK, absolutely nothing on God's green earth "confers" notability (look at the big bolded and linked answer a few posts earlier). From even a quick glance at NSPORTS, it should be obvious that it is only a presumption (as one can notice from the ever repeated and bolded "An [x-sport person] is/are presumed notable if [...]"), and presumptions can be rebutted. Now, to be pragmatic, there tends to be more leeway for subjects which are marginal NSPORT-whatever passes if they are from a while ago, but this isn't a free pass to keep such articles when a look through period sources (i.e. the newspapers already cited) reveals only trivial coverage, Even less so when a fair bit of the rest is based on primary sources (census records). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:49, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and the presumption of notability from NFOOTBALL is predicated on professionalism, but this guy was an amateur footballer. I suppose next year we'll be able to see from the census what he did for his day-job. That's pretty standard since the supposedly 'fully-professional' English Football League was replete with coal miners, steel workers, school teachers etc. until quite recently in historical terms. Here the only reference which isn't a routine stats listing or an original analysis of a primary source is a single line in a local newspaper, which explicitly describes him as being "unknown" outside his own locality. Hardly the stuff of WP:GNG! Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 20:28, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITSNOTABLE !votes? See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles Orford.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 19:09, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Delete. Agree fully with RandomCanadian: what evidence do we have that players of his era and location reliably meet GNG, whether through offline or internet sources? Considering how obsessive local football clubs are in documenting their history down to the minute of every game, wouldn't we expect them to have uncovered all SIGCOV available by this point and at least referenced it on their websites? Restated: if the people most intimately familiar with players in his league, who not only live in the area and have access to historical documents curated by their club but also are incentivized to promote coverage of such players, haven't discovered enough to write a biography of this dude, then who are we to assert some future editor who happens to be in the area will be any more successful? JoelleJay (talk) 01:31, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Notability not established with the coverage being a combination of primary sources, routine life/career details and passing mentions.
    Avilich (talk) 18:16, 14 November 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 deleted per

(non-admin closure) – The Grid (talk) 19:50, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Pulock Deb Roy

Pulock Deb Roy (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 was speedied many times before, last on 2 November. The person has responded by (probably) paying small news outlets to publish articles about him (literally the next day on 3 November: [9], [10] and this one today). Obvious promotion of person that fails GNG and MUSICBIO.

~StyyxTalk? ^-^ 18:11, 8 November 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. The nominator has been blocked as a sockpuppet and there are no remaining deletion proposals.

(non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 04:07, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Wuhan, I Am Here

Wuhan, I Am Here (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet with

WP:GNG guideline.  from, Orbit Wharf  💬  •  📝 06:17, 24 October 2021 (UTC) struck confirmed blocked sockpuppet, Atlantic306 (talk) 01:08, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  from, Orbit Wharf  💬  •  📝 06:17, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions.  from, Orbit Wharf  💬  •  📝 06:17, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete This film may exist but I was unable to find any coverage in independent, reliable sources in English. Perhaps coverage exists in Chinese, or in Japanese, since it was screened at a film festival in Japan. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:32, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because of the sources that Cunard found. Thanks. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:54, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Found nothing in English, Chinese, or Japanese. Jumpytoo Talk 06:41, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cunard's found sources. In terms of The Long Night vs I Am Here, having The Long Night redirecting to I Am Here is probably the better move. Jumpytoo Talk 19:53, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There was coverage of the then-unusual sight of city streets under lockdown in Lan Bo's February 2020 short film "Wuhan: The Long Night", with the expressed intention to develop a longer documentary, but one film festival showing may be just
    WP:TOOSOON. AllyD (talk) 07:56, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 14:55, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 17:33, 8 November 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

Australia-Pakistan relations. I find Pilaz's contribution the most persuasive from a policy viewpoint, in a debate that teetered on the edge of no consensus but ultimately came down to strength of argument, not quantity. Daniel (talk) 00:38, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

High Commission of Australia, Islamabad

High Commission of Australia, Islamabad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Embassies/high commissions are not inherently notable. This article just confirms it exists, lacks third party coverage to meet WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 00:54, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:58, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:58, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:58, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Added 4 new references from the major newspapers of Pakistan. Removed all dead links and added 2 external links from Australia. Meets
    WP:GNG now. Ngrewal1 (talk) 00:08, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep per
    WP:HEY following edits by Ngrewal1. Deus et lex (talk) 10:49, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep, because of the added referencesJackattack1597 (talk) 21:33, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Only the first source even purports to cover the commission itself, the other ones just mention it in passing alongside routine associated events, such as minor cultural exchanges or public statements by the people who work in it (again, only proving that it exists, as the nominator pointed out). Notability not established with significant and
    Avilich (talk) 22:10, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:29, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 17:32, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per Ngrewal's edits. If something can be fixed, it shouldn't be at AFD, it should be fixed. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 03:35, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's all routine fluff that fails
    Avilich (talk) 00:40, 12 November 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 nomination has not been disproven referencing Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Daniel (talk) 23:21, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Derakhshani

Sam Derakhshani (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; article has been essentially unsourced since it was created in 2010. BEFORE, at least in English, turns up nothing usable (string: "sam derakhshani"). —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 23:59, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:28, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:28, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
🌀 00:41, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
keep The article is poorly sourced, but Sam is a very well-known Iranian actor who has appeared in many popular movies and TV series Mardetanha (talk) 20:29, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Which is completely irrelevant here. Without sources, notability has not been shown. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 19:26, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:00, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.google.com/search?q=%D8%AA%D8%B3%D9%86%DB%8C%D9%85+%D8%B3%D8%A7%D9%85+%D8%AF%D8%B1%D8%AE%D8%B4%D8%A7%D9%86%DB%8C&sxsrf=AOaemvLqizgZLag0aiQNbxdwfvmi541OTA:1635764514686&source=lnms&tbm=nws&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjV9NTWgffzAhURRuUKHc_CC8wQ_AUoA3oECAEQBQ&cshid=1635764579723477&biw=1366&bih=657&dpr=1 bi (talk) 11:03, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Can any of those results be used to cite anything in the article, per
WP:N? Just throwing us a Google search is worthless; the overwhelming bulk of Google hits aren't useful sources. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 11:27, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Hoping to see a real discussion about notability including sources. So far, none of the above votes have any policy-based merit.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 17:19, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep Sam is a very well-known Iranian actor who has appeared in many popular movies and TV series.--Alireza Khabib (talk) 03:16, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I added news sources to the article.--Alireza Khabib (talk) 03:30, 9 November 2021 (UTC) striking confirmed blocked sockpuppet, Atlantic306 (talk) 01:17, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails notability guidelines. The sources that was presented were mostly unreliable sources. This discussion should be relisted. 39.121.228.67 (talk) 12:41, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Sam Derakhshani is a famous and very well-known Iranian actor. Kidsonthemoon (talk) 15:41, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Based on
    Entertainers Notability. He is well-known Iranian actor who has appeared in many popular movies, TV series & TV shows. He is famous enough to have an article. Pinkfloyd amir (talk) 17:56, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]

* keep iranian best actors.--2A01:5EC0:B003:4752:9026:3EC5:D1F9:B70A (talk) 23:52, 14 November 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 00:49, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Many-to-many

Many-to-many (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'm skeptical this is a "real" concept. There is one, low-quality source. We already have articles on multicast and Broadcasting (networking). This article claims "many-to-many" is "one of three major Internet computing paradigms", but this appears to be a false claim made up by a non-notable consultant. cagliost (talk) 10:30, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:02, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, this is a real concept and there are many sources on the subject,[1][2][3][4][5][6][7] but the article is awful. Wikipedia itself is an example of this concept!

References

  1. ^ Chandler Harrison Stevens (June 1981). "Many-to many communication" (PDF). Massachusetts Institute of Technology. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  2. doi:10.1080/02691728.2011.578306
    .
  3. doi:10.1109/INFCOM.2007.213
    .
  4. ^ Iulia Ghiu (2003). "Asymmetric quantum telecloning of d-level systems and broadcasting of entanglement to different locations using the "many-to-many" communication protocol". Physical Review A. 67 (1).
  5. ^ Dondeti, L.; Mukherjee, S.; Samal, A. (1999). "A distributed group key management scheme for secure many-to-many communication". Tech. Rep. PINTL-TR-207-99.
  6. ^ Renato M. de Moraes; Hamid R. Sadjadpour; J. J. Garcia-Luna-Aceves (December 2008). "Many-to-Many Communication for Mobile Ad Hoc Networks" (PDF). IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS. 7 (12).
  7. doi:10.1007/s00453-007-9123-5
    .

SailingInABathTub (talk) 14:39, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • If this is kept it should be moved, as "many-to-many" can qualify lots of things apart from communication between computers.
    Phil Bridger (talk) 19:20, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 16:20, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep sources exist above, and the poor state is tempting to
    WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. Widefox; talk 23:38, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete primarily a TNT delete. Many-to-many (data model) is a separate (and notable) concept, but what we have here is just original research. The sources above are about network protocols and bear almost no resemblance to the current article. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 03:39, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, that's enough to avoid a TNT delete. Not sure this is primary over the data model, but that's a follow-up discussion. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 03:45, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I've revised the article and added sources. SailingInABathTub (talk) 02:00, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep With the editing work of SailingInABathTub on clarifying the topic and adding references, this is now a well-referenced stub on many-to-many as a mode of social interaction, rather than of network protocols or database schema. I think it shows potential as an article, or at least a possible merge into an associated sociology article on the subject. In either case, verifiability has been established, and the topic seems likely notable, hence deletion is not warranted. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 03:41, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:16, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abhik Choudhury

Abhik Choudhury (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

creative individuals guideline either. Sdrqaz (talk) 16:09, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:16, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Cadsby

Ted Cadsby (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Okay, now I've had time to look at this properly. Beyond articles written by the subject himself; social media/similar profiles; the subject's Youtube channel; and book listings in databases, and after removing the more dubious content based on such sources, I can't find any coverage amounting to

WP:GNG. The fundamental COI/promotional tone issues are probably linked to this lack of acceptable sources. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:51, 8 November 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. Nevermind this deletion, I went deeper and found some sources on the same site of the interview.

(non-admin closure) Waddles 🗩 🖉 15:12, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge Magic

Merge Magic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

significant coverage of the game. Only refs in article are two sites you can download the game from and the game's official site. I did find one other source though, but it's an interview. May be eligible for merge or redirect to Zynga. Waddles 🗩 🖉 15:10, 8 November 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 DC Talk. ✗plicit 23:41, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Under God (book)

Under God (book) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Including:

Both the first book and its sequel appear to fail

WP:NBOOK, which requires a book to be the subject of two or more non-trivial, independent works. I can find only one piece of coverage for each book: a Publishers Weekly review of Under God ([11]) and a Cross Rhythms review of Living Under God ([12]). Both reviews are additionally fairly short and not particularly in-depth. Lennart97 (talk) 14:55, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on

"soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 23:17, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

The Country Girl (Hasan el-Saifi film)

The Country Girl (Hasan el-Saifi 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)

A non-notable film which fails to show any notability to meet

WP:NFILM. Htanaungg (talk) 09:24, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:44, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Soft Delete It's not a good sign that the disambiguator refers to a person Hasan el-Saifi who is a redlink; however based on the English coverage I assume Arabic speaker could create a well-sourced article on him. Regarding the film, there is not enough in the article to demonstrate notability, and I find nothing more in English; however without checking in Arabic I can't give a full endorsement of deletion. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 03:45, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on

"soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 23:17, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Geek Chic (book)

Geek Chic (book) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails

WP:NBOOK; there's no significant coverage to be found. None of the authors seem to be notable, either. Unsourced stub. Lennart97 (talk) 14:42, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on

"soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 23:16, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Institute for Integrative Nutrition

Institute for Integrative Nutrition (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet

WP:NOTRS, and a search for news items and scholarly literature shows no significant coverage by either. François Robere (talk) 14:32, 8 November 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. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 22:32, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey McKnight

Jeffrey McKnight (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Insufficient

Wikipedia is not a memorial. OhNoitsJamie Talk 14:30, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

@
WP:AFDFORMAT. It's generally best practice to state why you are !voting keep; you'll notice below each editor states their !vote (keep, delete, etc.) and then explains the reasons for such. AFDFORMAT states, "The debate is not a vote; please do not make recommendations on the course of action to be taken that are not sustained by arguments." If interested, you can also read Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Note that this is an essay and not adopted as policy at this point. Hope this helps! Feel free to reach out on my talk page with any questions. --Kbabej (talk) 23:29, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
@Kbabej: Thank you, I will keep that in mind for the rest of the discussion. Obelus19 (talk) 00:07, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article doesn't even spell his name correctly... Article has correct name, it's just the AfD that is misspelled. It's tragic that such a promising researcher's career was cut short, but he just doesn't meet the requirements for NPROF. I looked at the 25 coauthors of his with 5+ articles who hold or have held research positions beyond postdoc (but including senior scientists in industry, even though many never did postdocs). These are their Scopus metrics:
Total citations: average: 4820, median: 2304, McKnight: 646.
Total papers: avg: 76, med: 55, M: 19.
h-index: avg: 29, med: 27, M: 11.
Top 5 citations: 1st: avg: 574, med: 311, M: 145. 2nd: avg: 349, med: 192, M: 125. 3rd: avg: 262, med: 130, M: 79. 4th: avg: 218, med: 109, M: 55. 5th: avg: 182, med: 79, M: 54.
Even if we include all 38 coauthors with 5+ papers (including postdocs and grad students), he is below the median:
TC: avg: 3289, med: 852, M: 646. TP: avg: 53, med: 20, M: 19. h-index: avg: 21, med: 15, M: 11. 1st: avg: 427, med: 190, M: 145. 2nd: avg: 254, med: 127, M: 125. 3rd: avg: 189, med: 96, M: 79. 4th: avg: 154, med: 76, M: 55. 5th: avg: 127, med: 60, M: 54. JoelleJay (talk) 20:24, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please also note that
WP:1E should apply here as well. JoelleJay (talk) 02:03, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
I agree with this being a 1E situation. --Kbabej (talk) 16:55, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It is unfortunate that he died, but I don't see how this subject meets NPROF or GNG. Taking out the tweets and the self-published LinkedIn sources, the sourcing is very weak. Without the social media, two sources are by his employer (therefore non-independent sources) and so we are left with two sources about him dying. --Kbabej (talk) 20:38, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I corrected the spelling error earlier, if I am not mistaken his name is spelt correctly throughout the page. An category of academic notability is "the person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources". The reference from The Scientist Magazine notes that "McKnight was one of the only researchers in the world capable of intentionally manipulating chromatin structure". Would that not be a notable attribute? On the issue of sources, would expanding to more news articles and adding information from Google Scholar help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Obelus19 (talk • contribs)
@Obelus19: Yes, newspaper coverage about the subject (not by him) would be helpful. --Kbabej (talk) 00:21, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Obelus19: I found more information that could potentially add to the article, tell me what you think.
     * https://grantome.com/grant/NIH/R01-GM129242-02
     * https://people.com/human-interest/dad-lymphoma-surprised-family-plannning-life-after-death/
     * https://www.dailyemerald.com/news/beloved-uo-biologist-jeff-mcknight-dies-6-months-after-cancer-diagnosis/article_a6b4565a-11af-11eb-9a63-cf39ad822b51.html
     * https://pages.jh.edu/bowmanlab/alumni.html
     * https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jeffrey-Mcknight
     * http://molbio.uoregon.edu/mcknight/

Some of sources provide more publications, would any of them boost his median? Also, his full name is Jeffrey Nicholas McKnight. Obelus19 (talk) 00:53, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please take the time to read
reliable secondary sources that address notability criteria. OhNoitsJamie Talk 01:02, 9 November 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. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 22:29, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

David Oulton (actor)

David Oulton (actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

primary sources that aren't support for notability at all, and even the five that are left still comprise three pieces of "local man does stuff" in his hometown local media market, one piece that's simply a syndicated reprint of one of those first three and thus not adding a new data point to whether he has enough coverage or not, and just one piece that actually goes beyond just local interest coverage within Calgary.
His talk show already has an article, but none of the content or sourcing in this article offers a compelling reason why he needs a standalone biographical article as a separate topic from the show. Ordinarily I'd just redirect this to the show and walk away, but since there's already been reversion-warring by other editors over that I thought it better to test for consensus rather than acting arbitrarily. Bearcat (talk) 13:59, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:28, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete Seems to be a pretty uncontroversial delete to me. This just seems to be a content fork, there is nothing that indicates that this person is notable enough independent of their show to warrant a wikipedia page. The fact it failed AFC and was published anyway says it all imo Vanteloop (talk) 19:27, 8 November 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 Hillsborough County Public Schools. (ATD) Daniel (talk) 23:16, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Empowering Effective Teachers

Empowering Effective Teachers (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 think its failing

WP:CONFLICT. --► Sincerely: Solavirum 04:54, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Not even very interesting, and five years out of date.Nwhyte (talk) 05:30, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: "Not even very interesting, and five years out of date" is not a valid reason for deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:18, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:20, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Neil Stott

Neil Stott (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 as written does not satisfy WP:PROF. Additional searching did not reveal additional material that would satisfy this notability criteria. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 14:18, 8 November 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) 23:15, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lily Carter

Lily Carter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Porn performer with inadequate sourcing to meet BLP, GNG & N.

Spartaz Humbug! 21:28, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Shellwood (talk) 21:32, 31 October 2021 (UTC) [reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article cites AVN with multiple sources which is listed on
    WP:RSP as a generally reliable source, as well as CNBC which a major American business and LA Weekly, of which I can see nothing saying this source is unreliable. As for Xbiz according to RSP there is no consensus but it is not labelled as unreliable. The page could certainly do with improving as far as sources go but I don't think it justifies deletion. Helper201 (talk) 17:56, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete There are tons of pornographic articles, but this one is isnt good enough. 121.185.35.240 (talk) 11:45, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Lacks independent RS coverage to support
    WP:ENTERTAINER notability claims. To add to my comments above, the LA Weekly, CNBC and similar hottest porn star lists do not constitute significant coverage, and AVN's "Fresh off the Bus" is promotional primary source content. • Gene93k (talk) 12:42, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:32, 8 November 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. NBOOK shown to be met. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 22:28, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Memories of the Irish-Israeli War

Memories of the Irish-Israeli 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)

Fails

WP:NBOOK, as I can't find any significant coverage of this novel. The author appears to be non-notable as well, at least as a writer. Unsourced original research. Lennart97 (talk) 13:19, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 13:19, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 13:19, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete - incredibly obscure book by obscure writer. NO sources, no assertion of notability whatsoever, just a plot summary with coy euphemisms. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:24, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Although I canx tw reviews of the book here [14] and here [15] and a mention here [16], none given a breakdown to match the page. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 14:48, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Definitely not notable. Amazon.com has no reviews whatsoever for a book that has been out for a quarter of a century, and illustrates it with the cover of a completely different book in French. Amazon.co.uk shows a different cover (correct, but obviously computer-generated) and likewise no reviews. Athel cb (talk) 18:05, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I wouldn't expect Amazon reviews for a book which predates Amazon. Works from the 80s and 90s can be the hardest to find sources for, since the coverage is usually in print which has often not been digitized. This may not be a book which currently attracts much notice, but notability is not temporary, and to my surprise I think it has sufficient reviews to pass NBOOK. I found records of a review by Alison Woodhouse in the Times Literary Supplement, 1995-06-09 (4810), p.27; added to what appear to be reviews in New Scientist, Jewish Quarterly, and Books Ireland above, it seems to exceed the minimums for NBOOK. It would be nice to be able to access the sources in full to confirm that they are full reviews (of at least a paragraph) rather than simply notices of a recently-published book, but the snippets indicate that the reviewer has actually read the work in question. The article is unsourced, but it's also all plot summary, which is assumed to be sourced to the book itself; I don't think it's in such a bad state that
    WP:DYNAMITE would apply. I expected this to be an obvious delete but I actually think NBOOK supports keeping the article. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 02:23, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Weak keep: One review found online and added, in New Scientist, bizarrely. This suggests that there may be more reviews out there in pre-online sources. PamD 08:55, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This was a before-the-world-went-online minor phenomenon in its circle. —¿philoserf? (talk) 15:02, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the excellent detective work above. pburka (talk) 15:36, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, meets
    WP:NBOOK with mulitple reviews as discussed above, btw jstor lists the Books Ireland review here. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:38, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep I created the article, and also agree as per Coolabahapple's reasoning. --Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 05:26, 13 November 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 nominator's rationale was supported and built on by established Wikipedians, referencing Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and those opposed to deleting did not present any policy-based refutation. Daniel (talk) 23:15, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tears for the Dying

Tears for the Dying (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced article about a local band which appears to fail

WP:MUSICBIO. While they get some coverage in local media ([17]) and genre specific outlets ([18]), and one member in particular has received coverage in relation to the queer punk movement ([19]), none of it amounts to the in-depth coverage by reliable sources that MUSICBIO/GNG requires. (Full disclosure: this nomination was suggested to me by Doomsdayer520 on my talk page, inspired by some related bands that I nominated yesterday.) Lennart97 (talk) 13:12, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Wikipedia is not the only website in the world in which someone can get noticed, and the above vote shows little knowledge of this site's
notability qualifications. Also, I noted that Adria Stembridge could possibly qualify for an article of their own, but that must survive the same analysis. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 18:48, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Per
notability qualifications, this band "has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself". Global and national "non-trivial" articles on Kerrang([30]) and Alternative Press([31]), as well as multiple examples of regional press listed in the Retain vote above clearly meet this plainly worded qualification. I stand by my recommendation that this AfD be removed and the page in question remain in place. Whether or not there is an additional article for the individual musician has nothing to do with this specific AfD discussion. ---Adria_Stembridge (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:58, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

References

  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(music)
  • RETAIN: Tears For The Dying is a notable band within the Death Rock genre with a following as well as influential within the genre. They should be researchable on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:80:8681:3BB0:6D02:3109:4EB0:3C08 (talk) 20:02, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain: The Tears For The Dying page clearly meets section one of wikipedia's notability standards as outlined in previous articles. Tears For the Dying holds a long list of appearances on multiple nontrivial published works in which are not self promotion or advertisement. Other members belonging to marginalized communities have given quotes on noteable published works. We need pages like this on Wikipedia specifically so other poc and queer youth can have easy access to a path of musicianship readily available. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Morguewidow (talk • contribs) 20:02, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Looking at the sources which User:Adria_Stembridge posted above, I'm not convinced that any of them prove this band's notability. This one covers Ms. Stembridge herself, and the only thing it says about the band is that it is goth and post-punk. This one also covers Ms. Stembridge herself, and says absolutely nothing about the band. This one is an interview, and so doesn't count towards notability. This one is trivial coverage, and so doesn't count towards notability. This one is also trivial coverage. This one I can't access. And this one is also an interview. So there are two sources which suggest that Ms. Stembridge is notable independently of her band, but none suggesting that the band is notable independently of Ms. Stembridge. I would fully support anyone who wants to write an article about Ms. Stembridge as a person, but this article should be deleted. Mlb96 (talk) 21:20, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
notability qualifications, I suggest they offer edits to that page and state their reasoning there instead of AfD discussion. ---Adria_Stembridge (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:33, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Both of the articles which I said were trivial are indeed trivial. One of them is merely a
independent of the subject, which is one of the requirements for a source to count towards notability. In fact, the page you keep linking to specifically states that "publications where the musician or ensemble talks about themselves" do not count towards notability. Mlb96 (talk) 22:42, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Being that many of us have actual day jobs we aren't as in tune with the correct verbiage to use. I entered the word Retain as it made sense. I have no control over what others enter, just as the verbiage Retain vs Keep has no substantial bearing on the discussion and is intended to question character of those posting in support of keeping this page in place. ---Adria_Stembridge (TALK|CONTRIBS) 22:18, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My name is Morgan Widow and I published the previous vote. This is not an attempt at gaming any system. That is inaccurate speculation. I am no writer and am only seeking to follow formatting as closely as possible. Other than Ms. Stembridge I personally, as a member of the band and seperate entity have contributed to said journalist releases in interviews about Athens, queer culture and the music scene this band has helped forefront. The argument that notability should be dismissed because Ms. Stembridge is only speaking on themselves or is the sole feature of said non trivial articles is invalid because there are instances with proof that other people talk about seperate subjects unrelated to Ms. Stembridge. Below is an non trivial article featuring myself speaking on the cultural subjects above. This proves our right to notability based on arguments you presented and notability standards. https://www.onlineathens.com/story/entertainment/2021/09/30/athens-musician-adria-stembridge-active-voice-trans-visibility/8148846002/ I can also assist in providing acess to previously mentioned articles as they are evidence of notability and need to be considered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Morguewidow (talk • contribs) 02:46, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have no emotional investment here and if the band's article is kept, I never have to look at it again. But all of the non-delete votes so far are from users who have done little or nothing in Wikipedia before this discussion, and at least one of them is in the band. Everybody has to start somewhere, and new editors are always welcome, but you have to realize that Wikipedia (as the name implies) is an encyclopedia in which people and things have to qualify for inclusion. It is not a media website to promote bands or to advocate for social causes, however noble they may be. Yes, Tears for the Dying is a band that stands for important issues and its members advocate on behalf of important issues. Those important issues might be "notable", but the band isn't. Sorry. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:52, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Providing access to the article won't be necessary because you admitted that you contributed to the article and that you are a member of the band. Anything which was written by or contributed to by any of the band's members is not
    independent of the subject, and so does not count towards notability. Mlb96 (talk) 17:29, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Also, there is no "right to notability" for yourselves just because you talked about an important issue. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 18:07, 9 November 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 11:06, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Akhil Bharatiya Poorva Sainik Seva Parishad

Akhil Bharatiya Poorva Sainik Seva Parishad (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 was speedily deleted under CSD:A7 on 25 October 2021 by User:Materialscientist. At Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 October 26, this deletion was overturned and the decision referred to AFD. I am completing this listing as a procedural measure and express no opinion on the article. Stifle (talk) 09:48, 8 November 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 11:07, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Political Film Society

Political Film Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of notability, and the article seems to have been heavily edited by it's CEO! JeffUK (talk) 08:40, 8 November 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) Vizjim (talk) 06:21, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dene music

Dene music (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 does not appear to cover a distinct genre or shared tradition of music, instead blurring many types of music from many different Canadian First Nations and Native American tribal nations (albeit within a shared language group) into one. I PROD'ed the article last week as it had been unreferenced since 2009: editor AleatoryPonderings then did sterling work in looking for citations. However, the citations they have added both refer to music within a specific Dene nation, not the larger group. It would be better for Wikipedia to have more precisely targeted articles. This could be done by reference to specific musical genre (e.g. Athabaskan fiddle) or by specific nation (Chipewyan music, Tlicho music, Yellowknives music, Slavey music, Sahtu music). If there is a general shared music tradition across all Northern Athabaskan nations, then that should go to the more etymologically precise Northern Athabaskan music. Vizjim (talk) 08:22, 8 November 2021 (UTC) Withdrawn by nominator AleatoryPonderings has produced excellent evidence that a shared tradition exists, so we should have an article on the subject. The article needs substantial improvement, especially to the definition of "Dene," but I'm convinced it should not be a candidate for deletion.Vizjim (talk) 06:21, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Quote 1. Very little Dene music has been collected; only Mason's recording made in 1913 using wax cylinders, and Helm's tapes of Dogrib and Slavey music made in the 1950s and 1960s are on file in the National Museum Archives. … Until 1975[1] the only published Dene music descriptions were by Gertrude Kurath.[2] These were based on a corpus of twelve Tea Dance songs and four Drum Dance songs (of the Rabbit Dance type) collected by Helm and Lurie … at a Treaty Day Tea Dance held by the Dogrib Dene at Lac LaMatre.
The Drum Dance songs described here [i.e., in Asch's study] are from the Slavey region. They were collected at five of the six Drum Dances which took place at Pe Tseh Ki in 1969–70.
Quote 2. Music was very important to the Dene, who had a variety of songs for different occasions. George Keith described the love songs, lamentation songs, and ceremonial songs that were performed at Fort Liard early in the nineteenth century, noting that other songs performed at dance ceremonies were generally made in imitation of animals like the bear and wolverine. … Music was an important part of the Dene's lives … particularly in relation to the acquisition of spiritual power.[3]

References

  1. JSTOR 850358
    .
  2. OCLC 1148842102
    . National Museum of Canada Bulletin 205.
  3. OCLC 243500610
    .
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 11:08, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Incident book

Incident book (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is an unsourced one line

dictionary entry and I don't see any potential for expansion, as it's simply not a notable topic. Lennart97 (talk) 08:01, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was procedural keep. The general view here is that the discussion was sufficiently tainted by sockpuppetry to prevent a valid consensus from forming. If there's still interest in merging or deleting the article, that can be done through the appropriate processes, "preferably by accounts who are not sockpuppets".

(non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 16:30, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Philippines at the ASEAN Para Games

Philippines at the ASEAN Para Games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet with

WP:GNG.  from, Orbit Wharf  💬  |  📝 04:41, 24 October 2021 (UTC) struck confirmed blocked sockpuppet, Atlantic306 (talk) 01:25, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions.  from, Orbit Wharf  💬  |  📝 04:41, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Since 2/3 participants are now indeffed, one as a sock, this ought to be given another week.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:15, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 06:21, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep: AfD was created by a confirmed sockpuppet, so this AfD must be declared as invalid. No more, no less. Anyone who is willing to delete this must file their own AfD, provided that they are not sockpuppets. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:24, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - nominated by sockpuppet whose MO is nominating articles for deletion, with no thought to their notability. Nfitz (talk) 23:29, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above reasons. Koikefan (talk) 00:47, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: merges can also be done outside of the AFD process. Preferably by accounts who are not sockpuppets... Geschichte (talk) 23:20, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to

(non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:14, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Jeff Carlisi

Jeff Carlisi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Jeff Carlisi

general notability
. The reference pages are not independent secondary coverage, because they are interviews, blog pages, and the subject's own pages.

Number Reference Remarks Independent Significant Reliable Secondary
1 YouTube About the subject No Yes No No
2 Swampland.com Interview No Yes No
3 Sweet Purple June: Wordpress A blog page about a band Probably No, passing mention of subject No No
4 Velvet Thunder Interview with subject No Yes No
5 Sweet Purple June: Wordpress A blog page interview No Yes No No
6 Jeff Carlisi . Com Subject's own web site No No No


This article has been created in both draft space and article space, and so cannot be moved to draft space. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:06, 8 November 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.

Withdrawn. VladimirBoys (talk) 01:54, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Roldan Aquino

AfDs for this article:
Roldan Aquino (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

With the sources presented only about his death and being guilty for kidnapping [32] shows that the topic isn't notable yet. VladimirBoys (talk) 05:12, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per
    WP:NACTOR. Though it needs more sourcing. He's prolific enough to be nationally notable, as pointed out in his obituaries. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 08:27, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
I would prefer this to be Dratify. In this case, it is unlikely to be improve along the rest of the articles. VladimirBoys (talk) 10:55, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep for now. Drags4U (talk) 00:28, 9 November 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. Nominator blocked as a sock and no one else argued for deletion (

(non-admin closure) —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 01:30, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Manuel Chua

AfDs for this article:
Manuel Chua (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 doesn't specifically mention about Manual Chua, and there are no more sources can be found as for

talk · contribs). [reply
]

  • Comment Guest, supporting and special appearance only. No main role. FAils GNGACTOR Mehmood.Husain (talk) 20:16, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Daniel (talk) 23:13, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Charlier

Anna Charlier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Her fiancé is notable; she isn't. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:13, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Clarityfiend: I don't know if you're seeing the same results as I am, but I just get specifically for Anna Charlier, some of them not significant, but also including things I've mentioned above, where there's significant treatment of Charlier if you've got access to the entire book. /Julle (talk) 14:01, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:GNG pass. Netherzone (talk) 14:54, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on

"soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 11:16, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Muhammad Nurul Karim

Muhammad Nurul Karim (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 academic. The cited sources are two brief mentions in lists, and two of his books. Searches of the usual types found no significant coverage in independent sources. The author

WP:PROF
criterion #6.

As of 1963, there were five TTCs in East Pakistan, with an average enrollment of about 120 students each.[34] As near as I can tell, at that time they offered 1-year Bachelor of Education and 1-year Master of Education degrees. Criterion #6 says "major academic institution". The community has never defined precisely what counts as "major", but I don't believe they meant a small, non-notable institution that has no special significance or particular reputation.

The article contains considerably more detail than is present in the sources, which suggests it was written by someone with personal knowledge, perhaps a relative. I can understand why someone might want to memorialize a loved one, but that is

not what Wikipedia is for. Worldbruce (talk) 05:01, 8 November 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 11:17, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Quicksilver (American game show)

AfDs for this article:
Quicksilver (American game show) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Free 4 All (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Two extremely short lived game shows that got no mention in the media. "Quicksilver" "Ron Maestri" and "Free 4 All" "Mark Walberg" turned up only IMDb, blogs, wikis, and the Encyclopedia of TV Game Shows. Only newspaper coverage was a single press release announcing the debut of both. Delete or redirect to List of programs broadcast by USA Network.

Last AFD in June closed as "no consensus" due to no participation after three weeks. Hopefully five months is enough to get more eyes this time. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:14, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:04, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. The current info in the article has no sources. – The Grid (talk) 17:52, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Essentially unsourced for over fourteen years and no likelihood of improvement or better sourcing. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:31, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. Pahiy (talk) 21:13, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Redirect to List of programs broadcast by USA Network per nom. It existed, that's about it. All content is unsourced and needn't be retained with the redirect. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 03:52, 14 November 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 11:22, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tillandsia 'Gunalda'

Tillandsia 'Gunalda' (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

For background to this rather large nomination, please see the previous bundle

WP:GNG
and do not have the presumption of notability granted to official taxonomic ranks such as species (and in which numerous participants voiced the opinion that undersourced cultivars ought to be deleted).

The remainder of this statement is copy-pasted (slightly reworded) from the Feather Duster AfD linked above:

All of the following articles are sourced solely to the cultivar database maintained by the Bromeliad Society International. Anyone can submit new cultivars to this database simply by filling in an email form. There does not seem to be any rigorous scrutinizing or verification process that the cultivar even exists, which is to say that it is essentially a user-generated primary source. Even if it were sufficiently reliable, I have not been able to locate any independent coverage for any of the cultivars I have tagged, nor do I expect to locate any for other similar cultivar stubs. It's clear that these cultivars don't meet the threshold for a standalone article either on verifiability or on notability.

When I encountered cultivars of a single species, I redirected to the parent species as possible search terms. Unfortunately, the great majority are hybrids of two species. From a technical perspective, this makes merging difficult, as an article cannot be redirected to two places and there is no objective way to determine which of the two "parent" species should have the redirect (and never mind those which are hybrids of hybrids). Merging would also mean including information in the species articles sourced only to a user-generated primary source.

Merging each one to the genus article would take up an enormous amount of space and place similar

undue
importance on a large list of unverified, non-notable cultivars. Merging to a standalone list is also not suitable, as the list would fail the verifiability/notability criteria owing to a lack of independent sourcing.

The following 50 cultivars will be included in this nomination just as soon as I can tag them. As before, I intend to notify

WP:PLANTS
.

A rather large list
♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:58, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on

"soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 11:26, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Paraestra

Paraestra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

For the references, all 4 Japanese articles are about upcoming Rizin fights where they mention the gym once because that where one of the fighters trains at. That's it.

There's no in-depth coverage about the gym itself from independent sources and an MMA gym article needs several of them.

Also there's a Japan wiki page of this and that too has been flagged as potential not meeting notability guidelines. Imcdc (talk) 03:10, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Daniel (talk) 23:13, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BharatPe

AfDs for this article:
BharatPe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

In its current form, this entity's article fails

WP:COI at creator 's end. Before this nomination, a detailed discussion has taken place at Talk:BharatPe - please do refer to it. - Hatchens (talk) 03:04, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on

"soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 11:30, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Phuket Top Team

Phuket Top Team (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 references here contain very little in-depth information on the gym itself. And many of them are just interviews with fighters (non-independent) which may include a bit about the gym they are training at.

Normally an MMA gym should have multiple independent sources about the gym itself in detail. Imcdc (talk) 02:44, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to

(non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:10, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

John McPheters

AfDs for this article:
John McPheters (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'm not sure why this was not noticed at the earlier afD. There is no apparent notability besides his company

The only article about him is the interview in complex,.com and it's a traditional promotional interview, where he says how good he is DGG ( talk ) 01:43, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:46, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:46, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:47, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:01, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Previous discussions: 2021-03 (closed as Procedural close)
Logs: 2021-01 ✍️ create ← 2020-10 ✗
G5
--
talk) 00:02, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Third relist being performed in hopes of getting at least some input from other users here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:40, 8 November 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. Withdrawn.

(non-admin closure) Mhhossein talk 11:11, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Bangubangu

Bangubangu (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'm not sure if this is a copyvio of the archived link, or if that (the only source) is a copy of this article. I can't find any other references to verify this content; there are sources for the Bangubangu language but not a Bangubangu ethnic group. User:力百 (alt of power~enwiki, π, ν) 02:39, 8 November 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 per

WP:BOLD. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 23:08, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Mile Road System (Michigan)

Mile Road System (Michigan) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Just a list of roads named "X Mile Road". No source explicitly discusses why the roads have these names. They have nothing in common other than being named "X Mile". While some roads such as 8 Mile in Detroit have historic significance, most of these do not and the article is otherwise just a list of roads with similar names. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 02:36, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to List of Digimon Adventure characters. Any merging can be done from the history behind the redirect by interested editors. Daniel (talk) 23:13, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of Digimon Adventure (2020 TV series) characters

List of Digimon Adventure (2020 TV series) characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga#Question about wether or not we need an article, the article is largely unsourced and also repeats information from List of Digimon Adventure characters given that the characters are the same from the original source material. Discussions were previously brought up at Talk:Digimon Adventure (2020 TV series)#Draft:List of Digimon Adventure (2020 TV series) characters and Talk:List of Digimon Adventure characters#Split proposal 2. During the draft process, it was rejected at one point for lacking notability but was created anyway without addressing those issues. lullabying (talk) 02:31, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: I think this needs to be done on a case by case basis as some of the lists that are borderline referenced have potential to be improved. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:24, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Knowledgekid87 Yes, which is what we are doing here, aren't we? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:57, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Harimua Thailand: The problem is that the current article lacks secondary sources to establish that its notable enough for Wikipedia. Plus, the main characters are pretty much the same as the original. lullabying (talk) 07:21, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
*Keep. The Reboot characters have multiple exclusive evolutions, if merge back with same Continuity characters which would make things way too confusing. - Harimua Thailand (talk) 22:36, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm sure anyone will be able to distinguish which continuity takes place, and just because there are new exclusive characters and evolutions doesn't necessarily mean it's enough to warrant a whole new page, especially when you barely have any secondary sources to show its notability. Also, the main characters are the same. lullabying (talk) 20:20, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
*Keep. per reasons above. - Harimua Thailand (talk) 22:52, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
*Keep The sourcing is enough. It's not good, it's not even okay. I would go so far as to say it's bad. But it's enough. - Harimua Thailand (talk) 22:59, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't have an opinion on this AFD but I should point out the above is an exact copy of a different user's comment from this recent AFD. Please don't do this in any future AFDs (at the least clearly cite where you are getting the words from) and also don't vote more than once. The closer will ignore multiple votes. Rhino131 (talk) 19:27, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I struck the multi-votes to make it easier for the closer, Harimua can combine the reasoning into their first "keep" vote above. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:13, 9 November 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 Gallatin County, Montana#Census-designated places. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 14:54, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Amsterdam-Churchill, Montana

Amsterdam-Churchill, Montana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Former CDP with no current or past significance. Amsterdam, Montana and Churchill, Montana are separate communities (and CDPs) with their own histories, so there's no reason to have a combined article. –dlthewave ☎ 02:17, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It creates unnecessary rehashing of materials. Already did. That's what this nomination seeks to eliminate. This opinion, however, illustrates why delete and redirect are needed. gidonb (talk) 14:36, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Reywas92: @Gidonb: I failed to notice that there were separate articles for the respective locales that this composite region is composed of. These sources can definitely just go in those articles; I'll change my !vote from "keep" to "redirect". jp×g 06:36, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@JPxG: Thank you for reconsidering and letting us know! gidonb (talk) 09:17, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on

"soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 11:32, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Art by Chance Ultra Short Film Festival

Art by Chance Ultra Short Film Festival (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:GNG. Gnews yields zero hits. The 2 sources in the article are primary sources. LibStar (talk) 02:10, 8 November 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. Multiple sources provided which have not been refuted, therefore meeting the General Notability Guideline. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 22:24, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Foxtrot Zulu

Foxtrot Zulu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Only one notable mention, one of the non-notable sources only mentions the band in passing and is about a member in the role of a school principal. Hoponpop69 (talk) 02:04, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I also found a magazine review. I'm not sure how this fails
WP:BAND "quite spectacularly". To me, that statement would only apply to a band article that has no reliable coverage. SL93 (talk) 17:41, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
  • The Gnome I said "Clearly notable" due to the sources that Chubbles mentioned because I think that they show significant coverage. Normally, such coverage is enough to save a band article from deletion and I don't see how this is any different. SL93 (talk) 17:31, 15 November 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 11:32, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of Algonquin Chiefs

List of Algonquin Chiefs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Prodded by IronGargoyle (talk · contribs) with concern Almost completely unreferenced list of non-notable individuals, but deprodded without explanation by Andrew Davidson (talk · contribs). The article is grossly incomplete, the only bluelink is William Commanda, and the only source is a primary reference about one of the listed First Nations. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:52, 8 November 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. Since there is a "clear consensus to keep",

(non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 16:24, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Ervin Fodor

Ervin Fodor (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'm tagging this article for an AFD deletion discussion because two editors, one a created account and the other an IP, have asked for this article to be deleted through speedy deletion and through a PROD, stating that it contains incorrect information and also that they do not want an article on Wikipedia. The identity of these accounts has not been confirmed but I thought I'd bring the issue to AFD to see if there is a good argument for keeping this article should the subject wish to see it deleted. This isn't a typical AFD rationale but in 8 years I've only encountered a subject asking for article deletion 2 or 3 times before so I think it's worth considering the request. Liz Read! Talk! 00:49, 8 November 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) 17:19, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Battalion Drum and Bugle Corps

The Battalion Drum and Bugle Corps (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Cntested PROD. No evidence of notability or competitive success, no references found outside the self-referential DCI ecosystem. Simple DCI membership does not automatically confer notability. Acroterion (talk) 03:52, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Acroterion (talk) 03:52, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. Acroterion (talk) 03:52, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:53, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:14, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. czar 05:55, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vine Hill-Pacheco, California

AfDs for this article:
Vine Hill-Pacheco, California (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Former census-designated places are generally not notable, this was superseded by the notable communities Pacheco, California and Vine Hill, California prior to the 2000 census ([42]). Reywas92Talk 00:10, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CDPs have usually been kept at AfD, but I would dispute any "legally recognized" status since they're really just used as a tool to group people for census purposes. In this case Pacheco and Vine Hill are separate communities with their own histories and the former combined CDP serves no current or historical purpose to the reader as a standalone article. –dlthewave ☎ 02:06, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2021_November_8&oldid=1055869669"