Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 September 8

Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

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 no consensus. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 10:16, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Monro

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

Does not appear to satisfy

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the ]
Note: This discussion has been included in the ]
Note: This discussion has been included in the ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:30, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I added some references. He's also a programmer. He is mentioned in the Speaking clock article because he is also notable for creating a web-based simulation, Online Time Service Home Page, of the Australian "Talking Clock" 1194 service, described here: Silva, Kristian (2019-10-16). "When Telstra shut down the Talking Clock, one man took the time to salvage it". ABC News. Eastmain (talkcontribs) 22:08, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Bold third relist chasing more participation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 23:51, 8 September 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 ). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. plicit 23:52, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of unidentified decedents in the United States

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

This is a very small random sampling of unidentified decedents in the United States which is largely sourced to the non-profit website for the

]

Adendum I am also adding the following articles which are

]

See the following:

List of unidentified decedents in California (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL
List of unidentified decedents in Florida (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL
List of unidentified decedents in Nevada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL
List of unidentified decedents in Texas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL
List of unidentified decedents in Virginia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL
List of unidentified decedents in Washington (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 23:42, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 23:43, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
]
Well that's my bad then. I didn't make these pages, at least this one and California, I only expanded on them. I don't need to be berated on why the pages aren't good enough, you've made your point. I thought I was doing a service by expanding on these pages, but apparently not. Doggybag2355 (talk) 00:44, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Doggybag2355 Please don't take this personally. Your heart was in the right place, and I think you were just not aware of why these kind of contributions are not really appropriate for wikipedia. Now you know. The statements above are necessary conversations pertinent to this AFD that have to be had in order to implement wikipedia policy, and are not meant to berate you personally but address the need to delete inappropriate content. If we allowed advocacy work on wikipedia, our neutrality and reliability as an encyclopedia would be jeopardized, and that is something we have to protect. I hope you will find some other way of contributing to the project that interests you. Please take some time to read through our core policies pages though, so you don't accidentally step into something controversial a second time.4meter4 (talk) 00:56, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You're a moron, wow. 142.67.230.105 (talk) 22:27, 31 December 2023 (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 ). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 19:57, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rise Interactive

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

Paid promotional spam article. After I cleared out all the business booster blogs, pay-for-play marketing awards and dead links (which may or may not have ever worked), this is what was left. A

WP:GNG, just a flurry of passing mentions and a little press release churnalism. I'd be happy to be shown wrong, but it would need to be shown. David Gerard (talk) 21:19, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 21:19, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 21:19, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 21:19, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 23:43, 8 September 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 ). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 19:56, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Don Goldwater

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

WP:POLITICIAN Failed candidate in one race rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 21:18, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 21:18, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 21:18, 8 September 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 ). 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 ). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:39, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Applause (software company)

Applause (software company) (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 NCORP: Everything here is a mere announcement. or a mention DGG ( talk ) 21:11, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:08, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:08, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:08, 8 September 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 ). 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 ). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was draftify to Draft:Harry Thompson (Hollyoaks). —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 16:32, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Thompson (Hollyoaks)

Harry Thompson (Hollyoaks) (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's been two rounds of edit-warring in the psat few weeks as to whether there should be an article at this title or not, with

WP:TNT would still apply since almost all of the content is in-universe information. Restore redirect. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 20:56, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 20:56, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:59, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect - it's 100 kilobytes of long rambling plot summary, and it was largely sourced to The Sun. This would be ideal for a Hollyoaks fan wiki, but not here - David Gerard (talk) 23:23, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect without deletion protecting it or sanctioning users as appropriate. It is not appropriate to take action against content, even content of little discernible value, on the basis of editor conduct. Even if it looks like trash, there is value in preserving the material in the history of the redirect so that it could be merged if appropriate. Jclemens (talk) 00:01, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect Little value to the encyclopedia, as this is mostly plot summary there is no justification for an independent article and this character is already covered in the list article. Polyamorph (talk) 08:34, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know First, I want to point out some inaccuracies in this discussion.
    DarkGlow doesn't insist on deleting it anymore, he even did some editing to this article himself. David Gerard claimed that my article was largely sourced to The Sun. It did have some references from The Sun, but it was a small portion of my references. It wouldn't have a big impact if I remove these references. Actually, all these references could also be found in other sources. By the way, this article is about a soap character, and The Sun is not more unreliable than other sources regarding soap. I'm new to Wikipedia edit, although I frequently read Wikipedia articles. I'm surprised that there are so many low-quality articles full of wrong information out there and no one takes action, including the section I tried to replace with my article. It turns out that people do take action, just not where I expect. I just want to help to improve Wikipedia. Now I know the problems in my article, and I can improve it. If the plot is too detailed, I can make it more concise. As for Polyamorph, I really don't know why he opposes this article. Every time he provided different reasons, so I don't know if I could ever satisfy him by improving my article. I just don't understand why people are so determined to kill my article. I'm not sure if I want to put effort to improve my article just being deleted later without any taces left. 108.20.174.38 (talk) 02:12, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
If you are unclear of my rationale, read my !vote directly above your own.Polyamorph (talk) 12:16, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I had read your post. I had also read your previous posts about my article. At different times, you provided the following reasons: 1)no justification for independent article for this minor character. 2)this character is already covered in the list article. 3)this is mostly plot summary. He was initially a minor character, but since 2015 he was no longer a minor character. Many characters in that list have their own articles, and some of those articles were expanded from the sections in the list article. The plot is too detailed. You added this later and it was also pointed out by other people. I know this is a problem, but if you oppose my article for the other two reasons, I can't change your mind by improving my article.108.20.174.38 (talk) 04:09, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note, I added the tag {{Long plot}} before restoring the redirect, so it is misleading to suggest I've altered my rationale. I didn't include it in my first edit summary but edit summaries are not the best place for a fully justified rationale anyway, they are quickly written to give other users an idea of what edits were made and why. There is currently no justification for a standalone article that is essentially all plot when the character is already covered in the list article. Polyamorph (talk) 12:32, 16 September 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 ). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:48, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anemostat

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

It looks like this was kept at a 2007 AfD with the rationale that the subject is a widely used device and the name could become genericized. I'm having trouble finding any useful sources to expand this article: nothing on Pubmed, very little on Google Scholar. The hits I'm seeing on Google are almost all to the company with the same name rather than describing a widespread air distribution device. Am I looking in the wrong place, or does the subject not meet

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Ajpolino (talk) 20:43, 8 September 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 ). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Geschichte (talk) 19:54, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cybex

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

Previously redirected to Cybex International, an apparently unrelated exercise equipment company. All of the news coverage I can find is either product reviews or passing mentions of their products. I don't see any coverage of the company qua company, and the statements in the article about employees and turnover (which regardless don't establish notability) are unsourced. Revert to redirect. (If kept, this should probably still be moved to something like Cybex (child safety product manufacturer), restoring the redirect but leaving a hatnote at the other Cybex.) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 20:39, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 20:39, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:06, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:06, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:06, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent
    reliable sources
    .
    1. "Kindersitz CybexCybex im Markencheck" [CybexCybex child seat in the brand check]. Focus (in German). 2014-07-02. Archived from the original on 2021-09-12. Retrieved 2021-09-12.

      From Google Translate: "Not cute, please, cool: Cybex designs child seats for trend-conscious parents. The products of the Franconian brand are also loved by international stars like Michelle Hunziker and Gwen Stefani. Cybex in the brand check. What is Cybex? The child seats and strollers with a star factor: Cybex has many fans among the celebrities. For example, Michelle Hunziker and Amber Rose pack their babies in models from the lifestyle brand. ... Cybex is the youngster among the child seat brands: The company Martin Pos was founded in 2005. [quote from Pos] Today Cybex is based in Bayreuth, Franconia, with more than 200 employees."

    2. Sommerer, Ulrike (2016-12-16). "Cybex: Feiern und feuern" [Cybex: Celebrate and fire]. de:Nordbayerischer Kurier (in German). Archived from the original on 2021-09-12. Retrieved 2021-09-12.

      The article has negative coverage about the subject in discussing layoffs and how (from Google Translate) "As soon as the resignation letter was on the desk, the dismissed people were escorted out of the company, says one of them. He doesn't want to read his name in the newspaper. He had already seen this happen to colleagues beforehand. They disappeared overnight". The article provides background coverage about the company (from Google Translate): "Martin Pos founded the company in 2005 with a few employees in Kulmbach, six years ago Cybex moved to Bayreuth. In 2014 he sold the Bayreuth company to the Chinese market leader Goodbaby. Martin Pos has been CEO of Goodbaby International since January (child car seats, buggies, beds, playpens, baby and children's equipment)."

    3. Ehrentraut, Dominik (2010-11-26). "Alles außer spießig" [Everything but stuffy]. Die Welt (in German). Archived from the original on 2021-09-12. Retrieved 2021-09-12.

      From Google Translate: "In 2005 he founded Cybex. Today the company employs around 100 people and has offices in Austria, the Czech Republic, Italy, Hong Kong, China and the USA. Another is to open soon in South Korea. The company sells its products in 50 countries and has annual sales of around 37 million euros. Even Hollywood stars like Sarah Jessica Parker and Matt Damon have been out and about with his strollers."

    4. Williams, Gisela (2015-12-11). "Jeremy Scott Adds Fashion Sparkle to Baby Strollers". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2021-09-12. Retrieved 2021-09-12.

      The article notes: "And at 6:30, the fashion designer Jeremy Scott arrived with Martin Pos, the founder of Cybex. Is Cybex a cutting-edge fashion label? Far from it. The company, based in southern Germany, makes highly engineered baby strollers and car seats that have become popular among jet-setting European and Hollywood parents. In 2013, Cybex commissioned Mr. Scott, the creative director of Moschino, to design a fashion-forward line of diaper bags, car seats and strollers."

    5. Wetzstein, Jürgen (2021-03-30). "Cybex steigt ins sportliche Sortiment ein" [Cybex enters the sporty range]. velobiz.de (in German). Fritsch & Wetzstein Verlag. Archived from the original on 2021-09-12. Retrieved 2021-09-12.

      From Google Translate: "The Cybex brand is particularly established in the field of children's equipment. With the new sports range, the Bayreuth-based company is advancing into new product areas and also in the direction of bicycles. Child car seats, baby seats and strollers - these are product areas in which the Cybex brand has so far been firmly positioned."

    6. Huang, Keira Lu (2014-01-29). "Stroller maker Goodbaby buys Cybex". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2021-09-12. Retrieved 2021-09-12.

      The article notes: "Established in Germany in 2005, Columbus has a presence across continental Europe, Britain and Hong Kong. For 2011, the company registered profit before taxation of HK$15.5 million, which then surged to HK$49.2 million in 2012." The article notes that Columbus Holding "is responsible for design and sales under Cybex" and that Goodbaby purchased it.

    There is sufficient coverage in
    reliable sources to allow Cybex GmbH to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 10:01, 12 September 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 ). 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 ). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. In the sense of "not delete". There is consensus that this is no longer a deletion candidate after the TV Tropes content was removed and the article rewritten. There is disagreement about a possible merger, but that can be followed up in a merger discussion on the article talk page. Sandstein 09:04, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Supernovae in fiction

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

TVTropes laundry list of every minor usage in fiction. There are no sources establishing that the topic itself is independently notable outside of the context of its parent article. There is nothing necessitating coverage outside of the main article other than the typical lazy dumping of content. If the topic needs any coverage at all, it needs to be through a proper summary style section per

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 20:25, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 20:25, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 20:25, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I dislike the stubbification of content where 0% of the original content is retained because it would have just been easier to put it in the main article rather than keep history which was literally a massive waste of time for everyone previously involved, but that's just a personal pet peeve. Regardless, we're no longer talking about the same article, so it's pointless to keep this up. Withdraw.
The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction aka http://sf-encyclopedia.com/search-results has no entry on this
Visual Encyclopedia of Science Fiction - Brian Ash - not in the index of concepts, some passing mentions in some entries
Brave new words the Oxford dictionary of science fiction by Jeff Prucher - has entry on term 'go nova' (p.80), 'go supernova' (p.81), but those are just brief notes, not SIGCOV analysis. No entry on supernova itself
Encyclopedia Of Science Fiction (Library Movements) by Don DAmmassa - no entry, some passing mentions in some entries
The Mammoth Encyclopedia of Science Fiction by Mann, George - no entry, some passing mentions in some entries. Has entry on 'Stars'.
The Greenwood Encyclopedia of Science Fiction and Fantasy - same as above
The New encyclopedia of science fiction by Gunn, James E - no entry, some passing mentions in some entries
Science Fact and Science Fiction: An Encyclopedia - has entry on "Nova" (stellar phenomena, not some work)
The reason for merge rather than keep is that based on my review, there is no
WP:SIGCOV of the concept of "Supernovas in fiction" outside one work. The new entry, now rewritten, is still based on few mentions in passing, and the only exception to go on is the one and a half-page entry in the last reviewed work. My interpretation of GNG is that we need at least two reliable, in-depth sources for something to be notable. All that said, the newly rewritten entry is well written and should not be deleted. Merging to the target article and redirecting this there should satisfy all policies. Ping all participants in the discussion: @TTN, Rsjaff, Rorshacma, Waxworker, Jclemens, Daranios, TompaDompa, RomanSpa, and Julle:. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:43, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:51, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping. I didn't offer a bolded !vote above, and I don't think I have changed my position that there are multiple reasonable outcomes here. Jclemens (talk) 05:19, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus: Next to the "Nova" chapter in Science Fact and Science Fiction, we have the chapter "Stellar Evolution: Supernovas, Pulsars and Black Holes", pp. 38-43 in The Physics and Astronomy of Science Fiction. So split by three topics I'd assume there's ca. 2 pages on our subject. But let's take the time of a closer look: p. 38 bottom to p. 39 middle is the scientific background about supernovae neccessary; p. 39 middle to p. 42 top then gives usages, examples and implications of super/novas in sci-fi. So I think we have two in-depth secondary sources here without looking further into the other sources used by TompaDompa, which is enough for my part. Daranios (talk) 10:37, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I quite agree with
stars and planetary systems in fiction is misguided, since this content would seem very out of place there. It might be a good idea to create an article about different types of stars/astronomical objects in fiction (black holes, supernovae, neutron stars, and so on), but I'm not sure, and that should probably be discussed separately from this AfD. TompaDompa (talk) 04:42, 15 September 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 ). 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 ). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 19:51, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Esther Romero

Esther Romero (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 very similar case to

WP:RS
) and a trivial Marca mention.

I have conducted a search of Marca, several Google searches, including some in conjunction with clubs that she was on the books of, and a Spanish source search. No significant coverage was found. The best I can find were a Futfem transfer announcement and being mentioned once in an AS article. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:16, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:17, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:17, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:17, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:17, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:19, 8 September 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 ). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Multiple reliable independent sources have been provided to meet

]

The Salvation Army Ray & Joan Kroc Corps Community Centers

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

They exist, but I couldn't establish that they meet

CAT:NN for 12 years; hopefully, we can now resolve it. Boleyn (talk) 22:00, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 05:44, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Striking my support for a merge. I changed to "keep" below after finding significant coverage and analysis in multiple independent reliable sources. There is enough analysis about Kroc Centers to support a standalone article. Cunard (talk) 00:36, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:31, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is there merge-worthy content that isn't at the proposed target?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 18:14, 8 September 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 ). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC(talk) 13:06, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gaurav Jha

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

Actor with no starring roles in several notable productions and no indication of GNG. Faizal batliwala (talk) 08:37, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Should not be deleted as it is enough referenced and the actor is notable. ksabhishekbhojpuri (talk) 08:48, 05 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Faizal batliwala (talk) 08:37, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:57, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:57, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 10:18, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Curbon7 (talk) 17:18, 8 September 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 ). 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 ). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Hockessin, Delaware. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 16:41, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Quaker Hill, Delaware

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

Could not find any evidence of a community called Quaker Hill at this location. Topos show nothing until a subdivision was built in the 70s or 80s, and the name doesn't appear on maps until 2011. Newspaper searches only returned a neighborhood in Wilmington of the same name. My best guess is that it's another subdivision (we're up to three now that I'm aware of) named after Hockessin Friends Meeting. –dlthewave 01:42, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave 01:42, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave 01:42, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If we're considering a redirect, we should think about whether Quaker Hill Historic District (Wilmington, Delaware), Wilmington, Delaware#East of I-95 or a disambiguation page of some sort would be more appropriate, since the Wilmington neighborhood seems to be the primary topic and we're struggling to verify that this one even exists. –dlthewave 22:14, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: If a redirect is to be considered, a consensus on the target is needed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Curbon7 (talk) 17:13, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Eddy, my concern is that readers looking for the Wilmington neighborhood would be directed to Hockessin with no explanation. I'm not sure that we can even mention Quaker Hill in that article without confirmation of what it is. –dlthewave 12:46, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Hockessin, Delaware. USGS maps show a couple streets and a couple houses in 1901, 1904, 1943, 1954, (the same number of streets and houses, even). The next map below 1:100k scale is 1993, which shows a few cul-de-sacs coming off the road. After that, it's 2011, 2016 and 2019; the USGS decided in their infinite wisdom to stop including useful information on quadrangles at this point, so I don't know how many houses there are, but it doesn't look like much. Google Maps puts the closest thing that isn't a house as Dupont (H.B.) Middle School, which is in Hockessin, Delaware. I will change to "keep" if sources can be found demonstrating that Quaker Hill is a real place name that's been used to refer to anything in archives. What I've found is a few mentions like these, referring to it as a neighborhood. Perhaps @Firsfron: can assist. jp×g 20:23, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm concerned that a redirect to Hockessin would be confusing to readers searching for the Wilmington neighborhood of the same name, especially since we don't have any sources that could support even a mention in the Hockessin article. We don't even know what it is/was! This is definitely about the Wilmington neighborhood, and the two rental ads [1][2] also appear to be in Wilmington. –dlthewave 01:55, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, surely there could be a redirect hatnote, and the GNIS source from the extant Quaker Hill article could support a sentence saying "it was listed in GNIS as an inhabited place" or something similar? jp×g 19:39, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Are you familiar with
WP:GNIS? I'm afraid it's not a reliable source for labeling something as a populated place. –dlthewave 03:09, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
I mean, it shows that there is (or was) something called Quaker Hill at that place, somewhen. I don't think a redirect requires that high a burden of proof, beyond "someone might type this in wondering what the hell Quaker Hill is". jp×g 08:36, 18 September 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 ). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 19:14, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Boccanegra (disambiguation)

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

Name list is already at

WP:PARTIAL match and unneccesary. —Bagumba (talk) 16:56, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. —Bagumba (talk) 16:56, 8 September 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 ). 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 ). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC(talk) 13:05, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Barnes

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

Part-time actor and musician. Has had 1 uncredited role in a film and is in a band that have yet to make any recordings. Fails

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. John B123 (talk) 16:51, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. John B123 (talk) 16:51, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. John B123 (talk) 16:51, 8 September 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 ). 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 ). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete.

G5 ~TNT (she/they • talk) 15:36, 8 September 2021 (UTC) ~TNT (she/they • talk) 15:36, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Vishal Bhujbal

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

Appointment to a government committee does not meet requirements for a notable politician, nor do minor awards. Previously created by a blocked editor and deleted; recently created again by a new editor without going through AfC. David notMD (talk) 14:45, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sir David notMD,

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk contributions) 15:09, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk contributions) 15:09, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk contributions) 15:09, 8 September 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 ). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. Obvious sock and clear-cut G11. There is no need for this to run a week Star Mississippi 18:49, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmadreza Nouri

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

Promotional article; no obvious

depth-of-coverage; the only sources with more than a mention appear to be press releases. OhNoitsJamie Talk 14:48, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk contributions) 15:10, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk contributions) 15:10, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk contributions) 15:10, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk contributions) 15:10, 8 September 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 ). 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 ). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete as G7. plicit 23:45, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Loch Urigull

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

Hoax? Completely unverifiable, the sources given are copies of Wikipedia.

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the ]
Note: This discussion has been included in the ]
  • Delete - (edit conflict) The source cites our Sutherland article where Loch Urigull appears in an unsourced list of inland lochs which was added in 2019. Could not find any other sourcing; even if this place does exist, it clearly doesn't merit a standalone article. –dlthewave 15:08, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd guess it's a mis-spelling, or possibly an alternative, for Loch Urigill. Mutt Lunker (talk) 15:11, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
They've also posted to that effect on my talk page. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:33, 8 September 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 ). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC(talk) 13:05, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

South Philadelphia Athenaeum

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

Lack of notability Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 14:14, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk contributions) 15:13, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk contributions) 15:13, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk contributions) 15:13, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talkcontribs) 16:10, 8 September 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 ). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Notability not positively established. The sources about various recordings and releases seem to dissolve under more scrutiny. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 16:46, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sung-Hee Kim-Wüst

Sung-Hee Kim-Wüst (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 indication that this person meets any criterion of notability. Nothing on JSTOR, no verifiable hit on Gbooks, two hits on Gnews, one of which I have added as a ref. Some previous content (which I have removed) was copied verbatim – with appropriate OTRS permission – from her website, and then translated here. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:31, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:31, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:31, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:31, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talkcontribs) 14:01, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Kim-Wüst's New York concert CD was originally released by Sony (According to subjects homepage), but it's not available anymore. Grimes2 (talk) 11:19, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
...and is completely unverifiable, not a trace of it seems to exist? So hardly a relevant element for an AfD. ]
You're right, but the Concert in New York happened. There are sources. This makes her notable for me. Grimes2 (talk) 11:52, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:24, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:24, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Her two CDs (produced by her husband): Sony CC971101 (Kammermusiksaal, Beethoven-Haus Bonn) and Sony CC991203 (Carnegie Weill Hall, New York), but no traces in Internet except subjects Homepage Grimes2 (talk) 17:58, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much. No matter how I parse it, I can't confirm these actually exist, with or without the topic's participation. Nor do those catalog number fit within any of Sony's catalog numbering schemes. I'm becoming a bit more dubious, but I truly want to extend my appreciation for the effort you've put into this. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 18:23, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be self produced. It's not Sony Records, it's Sony DADC Sony Digital Audio Disc Corporation. Grimes2 (talk) 18:26, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes. Well done! 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 18:39, 15 September 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 ). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on

]

Ihor Magurin

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

Fails GNG and NBOX. My before search in English and Ukrainian only found routine match results and fight announcements. 2.O.Boxing 13:22, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. 2.O.Boxing 13:22, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. 2.O.Boxing 13:22, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. 2.O.Boxing 13:22, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 13:31, 8 September 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 ). 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 ). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on

]

Vahram Vardanyan

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

Prod was removed with no explanation. Appears to fail GNG and NBOX. My before search in English and Latvian found a few passing mentions of a cancelled fight and I couldn't find anything in Armenian. 2.O.Boxing 12:40, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. 2.O.Boxing 12:40, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. 2.O.Boxing 12:40, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. 2.O.Boxing 12:40, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. 2.O.Boxing 12:40, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 13:30, 8 September 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 ). 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 ). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete.

G5 ~TNT (she/they • talk) 15:31, 8 September 2021 (UTC) ~TNT (she/they • talk) 15:31, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Nagesh Kariyappa

Nagesh Kariyappa (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 individual, not holding an office that would be an automatic pass of

WP:GNG with just trivial mentions and routine coverage. nearlyevil665 12:39, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil665 12:39, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil665 12:39, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

nearlyevil665 sir Nagesh Kariyappa is a well notable figure i think you had not read the whole articles. Please read it fully and take any decision. Please check Nsui official website for reference also JamesAlfa (talk) 13:30, 8 September 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 ). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. plicit 13:08, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Zhongxin District

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

It seems that no reliable source could prove that there is such a district with administrative nature exist in Zhongshan, Guangdong, China. Fails

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. DreamerBlue (talk) 12:23, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk contributions) 15:14, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/redirect to Zhongshan. This article was mass-produced by a blocked user who made thousands of substub articles on geographic places on which he had no expertise, typically using passing mentions or tables with little context as sources, many of which I had deleted for not being real jurisdictions or redirected for lack of independent notability. Even if this exists (it is listed in Zhongshan#Administration) it's not clear it should be a separate article as a city subdivision. Reywas92Talk 16:51, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - it's a region of the city, not an actual district. Gorden 2211 (talk) 00:25, 10 September 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 ). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. plicit 13:09, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dongbei District

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

It seems that no reliable source could prove that there is such a district with administrative nature exist in Zhongshan, Guangdong, China. Fails

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. DreamerBlue (talk) 12:22, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk contributions) 15:14, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/redirect to Zhongshan. This article was mass-produced by a blocked user who made thousands of substub articles on geographic places on which he had no expertise, typically using passing mentions or tables with little context as sources, many of which I had deleted for not being real jurisdictions or redirected for lack of independent notability. Even if this exists (it is listed in Zhongshan#Administration) it's not clear it should be a separate article as a city subdivision. Reywas92Talk 16:51, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not a real administrative division. Zhongshan city is not split into 5 districts and then subdistricts. The infobox even has a note: * Not a formal administrative subdivision Gorden 2211 (talk) 00:24, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It is not a populated legally recognized place, so it fails
    WP:GEOLAND, and while the lack of legal recognition is not a reason to exclude, the fact that it also fails GNG is. BilledMammal (talk) 01:56, 15 September 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 ). 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 ). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:41, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of people and films from Classical Hollywood cinema

List of people and films from Classical Hollywood cinema (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 list is far too broad, consisting of a random "selected" collection of actors, directors, films, etc. There are a ton of people and films from the Golden Age (which, according to Classical Hollywood cinema, goes back much further than I thought, all the way back to the silent era), far more than can be accommodated in a single manageable list. Larry Keating, for example, is an okay actor, but why the heck is he here and not somebody (or a thousand somebodies) better known. This even illogically includes international films not made in Hollywood. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:37, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk contributions) 15:17, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk contributions) 15:17, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk contributions) 15:17, 8 September 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 ). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 16:48, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Prometheus Fighting Promotion

Prometheus Fighting Promotion (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 criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP is for multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the ]
Note: This discussion has been included in the ]
Also if it helps, it's on Digi Sport (Romania) as well - which is the largest sports TV channel in Romania, part of the Digi Communications (the largest South-East European television platform according to some sources). .karellian-24 (talk) 22:48, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Karellian-24, NCORP requires references that meet NCORP criteria. I understand you claim that its new and on the television but we need references that meet our criteria. ]
Well, I am trying. If it doesn't pass I will integrate it to Colosseum Tournament, because basically it's their farm territory. Fight Box, Kickboxing Z and Tapology (the new Sherdog for all martial arts results). .karellian-24 (talk) 13:10, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • soft deletion
    at the end of its 7-day listing.
Logs: 2021-07 ✍️ create
--]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:56, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 10:31, 8 September 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 ). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to

]

ReIna ng Tahanan

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

No secondary sources. No evidence of GNG. The article is also wholly fancruft, with no Production or Reception sections. Entire TV series are not considered inherently notable, and segments of shows are very rarely so. A

AFC, so here we are. — Bilorv (talk) 09:44, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — Bilorv (talk) 09:44, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. — Bilorv (talk) 09:44, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. — Bilorv (talk) 09:44, 8 September 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 ). 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 ). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on

]

Compare download

Compare download (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:NWEB and WP:NCORP. All the sources seem to be regular PR releases or promotional articles. The only reliable source I could find was a Reuters article that had a passing mention of the company. AryKun (talk) 09:07, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk contributions) 15:18, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk contributions) 15:18, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk

contributions) 15:18, 8 September 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 ). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. plicit 10:11, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

David Devlin

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

Previously deleted in 2013. Credited as

gaffer in several films, which is not inherently notable. Does not appear to have significant coverage. Eostrix  (🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 08:41, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Eostrix  (🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 08:41, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk contributions) 15:19, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk contributions) 15:20, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk contributions) 15:20, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 17:12, 8 September 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 ). 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 ). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. plicit 10:12, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mic Dicta

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

Fails

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk contributions) 15:20, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk contributions) 15:20, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk contributions) 15:20, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Two of those sources are incredibly weak. I highly doubt that "xfdrmag.net" is a reliable source. It is, at best, a very indie digital publication that ceased publication in 2018. And the Bloomberglaw piece only mentions the podcast once. ]
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 ). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. plicit 10:14, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Poochakkanni

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

Non notable film, appears to fail

WP:BEFORE
except film database sites, videos, and promo material.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.--Filmomusico (talk) 21:29, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.--Filmomusico (talk) 21:29, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 03:43, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Before making such comments you should read
WP:NFOE: 2. The film features significant involvement (i.e., one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of their career -GorgonaJS (talk) 23:23, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:06, 8 September 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 ). 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 ). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Paul Krugman. plicit 10:15, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sweatshop labor fallacy

Sweatshop labor fallacy (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. Niche term used by a single economist, with the only citation being that economists own work. BSMRD (talk) 04:33, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talkcontribs) 04:37, 8 September 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 ). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 16:52, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of unidentified murder victims in Arizona

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

This article is a random very small sampling of unidentified murder victims in Arizona that probably aren't independently notable (with the exception of a few with stand alone articles). It's essentially

]

Adendum. I am also nominating the following related pages because of the same reasoning based on the outcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of unidentified murder victims in Pennsylvania. As it is a related AFD, I am pinging Clarityfiend, TH1980, Pharaoh of the Wizards, and Heartmusic678.4meter4 (talk) 04:02, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of unidentified murder victims in California (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL
List of unidentified murder victims in Florida (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL
List of unidentified murder victims in Georgia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL
List of unidentified murder victims in Michigan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL
List of unidentified murder victims in New York (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL
List of unidentified murder victims in Texas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk contributions) 15:23, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk contributions) 15:23, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk contributions) 15:23, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk contributions) 15:23, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk contributions) 15:23, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk contributions) 15:23, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk contributions) 15:23, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk contributions) 15:23, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk contributions) 15:23, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
]
The "List of unidentified murder victims in 'state name'" are splitted from List of unidentified murder victims in the United States. WP:Deletion is not cleanup and any entries with poor references could be removed without any afd and the "list of" articles could be merged into the main list article. Christian75 (talk) 09:08, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
While that's true, the main issue raised here is indiscrimination and whether such a list is even encyclopedic; as it's such a small and random collection of articles within a very large population. That's a discussion topic that extends beyond the purview of a MERGE discussion which is why it was brought to AFD. Merge is of course a valid outcome at AFD and you are free to argue the solution you just gave; but this was not a clean-up nomination.4meter4 (talk) 16:27, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I see some merge proposals but that would just migrate the issues this proposer has with the smaller article to another, bigger article. I don't see this topic inherently as unencyclopedic. There's certainly a discriminate dimension to it and I don't think all of these are necessarily qualified to be here but arguably some cases are more noteworthy due to a larger abundance of information, attention and efforts given to the case, age, new information in recent years or various other reasons. This discussion hasn't attracted many people but I believe some input from crime project editors would be desirable for this disccusion and the direction of these types of pages. In any case, I'm opposed to Lompoc Jane Doe being expunged because her case has inspired a novel and experimental use of genetic genealogy on decedents which has become a norm now after having been used for different types of investigations. --Killuminator (talk) 00:09, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose (vehemently). This information is an invaluable and concise source of information which is used as a reference and sourcing point on the web for sleuths (amateur and professional) to resolve these cases. Actually seems to fuel the passion to resolve the cases to a degree, and there is an impressive rate of solving them. This is not an obscure, ad-hoc "expand and remain" list. Personally, segmentizing the states with a particularly large number of noteworthy, "active" entries makes the List of unidentified murder victims in the United States easier to navigate (and may also prevent an almost inevitable future complaint that article is too elongated or exhaustive). I feel a sense of disbelief these articles have been flagged as such. They should not be merged. If you browse this topic enough on other websites (any state), these articles seem to have earned the public's trust and are like a combined nucleus for overall information on unsolved/unidentified cases.--Kieronoldham (talk) 04:24, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to
    WP:PRIMARY
    (unless they are being used in conjunction with secondary and tertiary sources which isn’t the case in much of this list).
Further, the use of these sources has not been done carefully with arbitrary location based names assigned to the murder victims not based in the cited primary sources which use law enforcement codes to label each unidentified body (largely because there are many unidentified bodies associated with most of these locations which is why they have coded names not place names). The location based naming and organization system used in the wikipedia lists are original to wikipedia and were compiled by drawing unique conclusions which amounts to
WP:Original Synthesis. There is a reason why we have policies like WP:No original research and the need to verify content with multiple reliable independent sources (see WP:Verifiability
).
All of this to say, how is this encyclopedic? NAMUS recovers over 4,000 unidentified bodies every year in the United States, out of which typically 25% remain unsolved. We are looking at thousands of unidentified murder victims in their database so I'm not really seeing how this tiny number of cases are encyclopedic. Further most of these cases aren't notable because they lack secondary and tertiary sources with in-depth coverage. Wikipedia's purpose and role is not to advocate or draw attention to unidentified murder victims and do the work of law enforcement agencies like NAMUS or assist amateur sleuths. It seems like these pages were created as a tool for advocacy which is outside of Wikipedia's purview (which is to be an encyclopedia). These lists are essentially ]
I appreciate your observation ("Wikipedia's purpose and role is not to advocate or draw attention to unidentified murder victims and do the work of law enforcement agencies like NAMUS or assist amateur sleuths"), but there is potential in Wiki as a referencing tool (even initially). If the likes of Google place Wiki. at the top of immediate search engine results for many a topic, perhaps it should be utilized as such if one is searching for topics as diverse as those Wiki. hosts.--Kieronoldham (talk) 08:05, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Kieronoldham, I can appreciate your
WP:SIGCOV require sources to be secondary, and the vast majority of these entries have no secondary sources validating its content. Nor are they likely to have secondary sources, because the vast majority of John and Jane Does found never get independent coverage.4meter4 (talk) 16:02, 14 September 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 ). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was draftify to

]

Ben Shelton (tennis)

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 tennis player who fails to meet

WP:NTENNIS. Couldn't find many sources to meet independent coverage guidelines and has had no major success in the professional circuit of men's tennis. Adamtt9 (talk) 02:19, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talkcontribs) 02:46, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennis-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talkcontribs) 02:46, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talkcontribs) 03:09, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see a single GNG source in the article; which refs are you talking about? JoelleJay (talk) 16:54, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Curbon7 (talk) 02:30, 8 September 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 ). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 14:48, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Almana Shchora

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

While this band's career was lengthy, it hasn't really taken off, and I can't see any criterion of

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 05:33, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 05:33, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:32, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Curbon7 (talk) 02:26, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I was unable to locate any sources of significance, although I think any coverage of the band is likely to be in Hebrew, offline, and/or in a newspaper archive behind a paywall. However, given that their albums have not been financially successful snd were not recorded with a significant label a claim to notability is pretty thin. My only hesitation here is the
    Ozfest performance. I did find that they performed on the Second Stage and not the Main Stage and it was only the Israel portion of the 2010 world tour, so it's not that significant of an achievement. The article's claim of performing alongside Ozzy Osbourne, Korn, etc. is a stretch as they weren't performing in the same venue at the festival. 4meter4 (talk) 03:28, 8 September 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 ). 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 ). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. consensus is the topic meets GNG, if barely. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 14:47, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Osfest

Osfest (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 on the grounds that "A BEFORE provides no evidence of notability for this short run music festival" and PROD declined in part: "Needs a cleanup, but with sources including the BBC, WalesOnline, and NME, I feel this is notable"

The sources, which I also found, do not establish notability. The WalesOnline piece is the best, but it really wasn't in depth coverage of the festival. BBC was announcing its postponement and NME was significantly more about the a particular band participating. Others that I found simply discussed that it was happening, and some event listings. There is nothing to indicate WP:ORG (as I assume NMUSIC doesn't quite apply) or that this festival had much of an impact and therefore notice. Star Mississippi 19:29, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 19:29, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 19:29, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 19:29, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 19:29, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I feel the WalesOnline source meets the requirements set out by GNG, as in, it is independent, verifiable, and significant coverage. The BBC source is short, though I feel it goes above routine coverage as it contains additional info, it is not only about the postponement. The BBC is also a national broadcaster, which I feel improves the case for notability. Agreed that the NME article is more about Razorlight than the festival itself, but this helps show that major bands did play at this event. There are additional sources available, I feel there is enough coverage available to meet GNG. ]
  • Keep, enough coverage for GNG.Jackattack1597 (talk) 21:34, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:09, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Curbon7 (talk) 02:23, 8 September 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.