Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 June 22

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< June 21	June 23 >

Guide to deletion

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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:12, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eve Sleep

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

I've tried to fix the promotional issues, but this page is written so badly that to fix it would be a waste of volunteer time. The references given barely qualify the subject for WP:GNG, most of the surces don't count as WP:RS and there is nothing suggesting the subject is anything other that your typical mattress company. Johnny three shoes 96 (talk) 16:53, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:56, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:56, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Coverage relies heavily on a couple of PR stunts, not enough to establish notability outside of that Dexxtrall (talk) 17:35, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:45, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 23:37, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mobilegov

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

Doesn't meet WP:CORP or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 20:57, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:15, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:15, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An article whose text sets out the wares of a defunct company. I updated the article in 2018 to include the company's renaming and then demise. I then added a PROD notice with the rationale "This former company received some product coverage and listings in start-up awards but not the sustained and in-depth coverage needed for WP:CORPDEPTH" but I see the PROD was challenged. Looking again for sources (for both the Mobilegov and later Login People names and their main product name) I am finding mainly sporadic announcements from their lifespan which are trivial coverage under WP:CORPDEPTH. The most substantial source is the WebTime Medias posting about the firm's funding difficulties and closure - a thorough-enough piece which could contribute towards WP:NCORP but which does not in itself indicate any attainments which would be of encyclopaedic notability, so my opinion continues to be that this article fails WP:NCORP. AllyD (talk) 12:15, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:42, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Daniel (talk) 23:38, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Roehr Motorcycle Company

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

I couldn't find anything to establish WP:CORP and there are only weak sources towards WP:GNG. After 12 years in CAT:NN's backlog, hopefully we can get it sorted. Boleyn (talk) 21:07, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:13, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:13, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:13, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've worked the article over just a little since it was nominated. We now have citations to notable publications or book (series) Motor Cycle News, Motorcyclist (magazine), and Complete Idiot's Guides; plus further reading at notable publications Wired (magazine) and RideApart. The publication dates span 2006 to 2011. I think this suffices to show SIGCOV required by WP:GNG. ☆ Bri (talk) 03:25, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:41, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above, article has been improved since nomination. NemesisAT (talk) 21:11, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 08:54, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

David Tate (broadcaster)

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

I couldn't establish that he meets WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 21:34, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:45, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:45, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see any claims of notability, and I don't see any references. My search for references did not find anything significant to add. Jeepday (talk) 15:53, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:40, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. LizardJr8 (talk) 21:01, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article was created by a virtual WP:SPA named "Analyticalassociates", whose edit history includes a reference to "myself, David Tate" in an edit summary — which means it's an WP:AUTOBIO. Not that there was actually much doubt of that, because it contains a lot of completely unsourced biographical information, with its only footnote being a one-off glancing namecheck of his existence as a giver of soundbite in a magazine article that wasn't about him. Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be referenced a hell of a lot better than this, and people aren't entitled to put themselves into Wikipedia for the publicity. Bearcat (talk) 17:51, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No reliable sources, no evidence of notability. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 11:41, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Hog Farm _Talk 20:24, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Anderson (voice coach)

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

BLP built on IMDB, an interview and a lot of passing mentions. Lack of in depth coverage by reliable independent sources. Does not pass WP:ANYBIO. Mccapra (talk) 20:28, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 20:28, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 20:28, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He is notable as NCREATIVE 1 "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors." Per Backstage, "Vocal coach Ron Anderson may be the man more stars turn to than any other. His client list extends literally from the Metropolitan Opera to Neil Diamond to Guns n' Roses."[1] Per WSJ, he is "a well-known voice coach who has worked with rockers like Axl Rose .. [and] uses the 300-year-old 'bel canto technique'."[2] I also found a profile of him, not yet cited in article: https://www.palmbeachpost.com/article/20120613/ENTERTAINMENT/812018726 Still, HouseOfChange (talk) 01:00, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment well, yes, he “may be the man more stars turn to than any other” but I’m not sure that’s the same thing as “widely cited by peers”. The 300 year old bel canto technique isn’t some special sauce this guy has rediscovered, it’s an absolutely mainstream technique taught by tens of thousands of people all round the world. Mccapra (talk) 16:08, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mccapra: I believe there is a good fit to the first half of NCREATIVE 1: "The person is regarded as an important figure [in his creative field] ..." IMO, being hired by Warner Brothers to coach Tom Cruise for a movie that cost them $75M establishes that Ron Anderson was a well-regarded voice coach." HouseOfChange (talk) 20:30, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok that makes sense. Mccapra (talk) 20:31, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:39, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:37, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article gets promotional at times, and media coverage that is specifically about him is scant. However he has been covered in reliable sources in relation to his students. Applying the musical notability guidelines may be unfair because he is not a creative performer, but I think he has enough for the basic requirements for any sort of person at WP:NBIO. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 01:45, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:46, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Great Evil Beast

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

This character appears in a storyline that is one of my all time favourites. I would be delighted if the article can be saved, but my BEFORE search suggests that there are not the sources to support such an article on Wikipedia. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:12, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:20, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not finding anything by way of reliable sources to substantiate this Dexxtrall (talk) 22:35, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to be pure fancruft with nothing in the way of reliable sources._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 00:42, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Its role in the Swamp Thing storyline should be adequately covered in the issue/comic series' article. There's nothing worth salvaging and I don't see a point in creating a redirect either. Haleth (talk) 01:36, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Commnet I'd support a merge into an article on the "American Gothic" storyline if there were one, but there isn't. It certainly be easier to find references for one. (The current Swamp Thing article is surprisingly slight on the Moore era and would not be a good target for a merge.) Artw (talk) 14:07, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. One of the worst fancruft pieces I've seen in recent memory. Fails GNG, etc. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:56, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:47, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Carron Clementina

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

Likely hoax; this article was created along with Carron Giovanni in 2003 by an IP editor. Google pulls up unrelated results; I found this but don't know if it is related to the person in question: https://www.libreriauniversitaria.it/clementina-carron-briancon-ultima-san/libro/9788881701292 wizzito | say hello! 22:00, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. wizzito | say hello! 22:00, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. wizzito | say hello! 22:00, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No hint of notability, even if the case it were not a hoax.--Phso2 (talk) 22:17, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing to be found, I support deletion as a likely hoax. Also, noting that this may be both the oldest and longest lasting hoax article ever, closely followed by Giovanni Carron. Suggest that the closing administrator consider listing on WP:HOAXLIST Jackattack1597 (talk) 15:14, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:06, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a premer example of everything that is wrong with Wikipedia. That this article has stood for 18 years is crazy, and example why Wikipedia never needs to have anything at all approaching a grandfather clause. This is a prime example why we need to start requireing that all articles be sourced to reliable sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:25, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment even scarier this article was previously kept. One of the reason for keeping it was that the Order of the Sacred Heart is notable. However even if we could estyablish her as a donor of all her goods to the Order of the Sacred Heart, that is not a sign of notability. I just bang my head at the backwardness of the last discussion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:27, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If this is a hoax, which it seems almost certain to be, it has existed for 18 years, 4 months and some days. That is about 4 years longer than the previous hox record holder.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:33, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This is very probably not a hoax, since there are existing sources ([3], [4]), only a case of non-notability--Phso2 (talk) 20:31, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:17, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TH Heavy Engineering Berhad

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

Non-notable company. Sources provided do not establish notability. ♟♙ (talk) 19:29, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:34, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:34, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If asking me off course I want the article to be remain in wikipedia but it's up to you. I'd try my best. This is my reasons:

1)Sources from The Edge, The Wall Street Journal and Reuters already strong. Who doesn't know them right? The reason this media outlet cover this company off course because it well known. I'd also observed that there a lot of company page in Wikipedia that their notability low than this. Some only had one source and even worse that one source is not reliable enough. If that page passed why not this?

2)This company is LISTED company in Bursa Malaysia. It is Public limited company and publicly trade. Big and notable enough.(see references in page)

3)This company client includes Petronas Carigali Sdn Bhd, ExxonMobil, Sarawak Shell Berhad, Sabah Shell Petroleum Co., Talisman Energy Malaysia Ltd., Hyundai Heavy Industries Co. Ltd, Keppel Corporation FELS, MHES Asia Sdn Bhd, Samsung Heavy Industries Co. Ltd, New eld Exploration Co., Woodside Petroleum PLC, Murphy Oil Sarawak Oil Co., Ltd. That notable enough to me. If some wikipedian don't ever heard about this company it doesn't mean its not notable. Who are we compared to that big companies that already be its clients.

4)UPDATED as June 22 2021, Added source from Google Books

Cheers :)

Kistara (talk) 05:09, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:30, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No non-trivial coverage. The WSJ and Reuters "sources" are just stock price trackers, and all the other sources are either not reliable, not independent, or consistent of only trivial coverage. The fact that the company has had important clients does not make it notable by itself. When the best argument for keeping is that other stuff exists, then the article should not be kept. Mlb96 (talk) 02:48, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As already stated, none of the sources contain significant coverage, and the article does not pass WP:GNG. —FORMALDUDE ^(talk) 22:57, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:48, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yael Belkind

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

Clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. "Assistant to the chief of staff of the Vice President" is not a notable position. KidAd • SPEAK 19:01, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NPOL, and the only available coverage is trivial name-checks in routine lists of appointees. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:16, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:10, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:10, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the position held is way below the level at which notability would be obtained.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:20, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A holder of a non-notable position.Jackattack1597 (talk) 15:29, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:43, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Godwin Maduka

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

Covert upe WP:ADMASQ on a non notable “businessman” and “Philanthropist” who lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. This is a tough one as their is a mirage of notability, but allow me explain this to you, A before showed this but there is no byline, which is indicative of a guest editor and this which also indicative of a pr sponsored post both of which are reliable sources but very unreliable pieces. Celestina007 (talk) 22:42, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:42, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:42, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:42, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:42, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:42, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, promotional. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:07, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG. Aishaa14 (talk) 19:37, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article is clearly written from a promotional standpoint and has some POV issues; notably, in the very first sentence, the claim of him being a doctor, businessman and philanthropist is cited to an article titled Las Vegas doctor denies allegations he runs militia accused of slayings in Nigeria. Huh???? Anyway, I don't know if he meets GNG or not. One thing I think should be noted is that @Celestina007: the BBC famously doesn't use bylines (see these three articles from their front page today, none of which credit an author). jp×g 22:51, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@JPxG, I recently noticed that as well. Thanks for the comment JP, as for the notability status of the subject of our discussion, it is non existent. Celestina007 (talk) 22:56, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This clearly has several NPOV issues, but I don't know how someone could come to the conclusion this fails WP:GNG without discounting basically the entire Nigerian media. He's had multiple pieces of significant coverage in the Vanguard, The Sun, and the Nation, Pulse NG, as well as the BBC - I don't need to bring the LVRJ article into this. Also, this article doesn't look like a PR sponsored post. It doesn't count towards WP:GNG because it's an opinion piece, and there probably has been some PR planting, but looking just at the references in the article shows there's several that are general news coverage. SportingFlyer T·C 18:59, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per SportingFlyer. Yes their are clear issues, and the article needs some trimming of overly promotional material. But what’s left still satisfies WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 00:14, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — I can see how this can be very tricky and can be confusing for editors not familiar with the Nigerian landscape. In Nigeria, even our so called reliable media are very much corrupt and can accept financial reward from the subject of our discussion and fail to declare the piece as a “sponsored post” anything is possible in Nigeria if you have the right amount of money to bribe your way through. An important factor is to examine the sources used, read them closely and you’d see they are all promotional in nature. You can easily identify this as almost all sources used in the article all sound like, which is a take sign of a pr sponsored post. To prove my point, this very article has all the tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. The Nigerian media is very much exceptional due to the gross amount of corruption ongoing in Nigeria. Take a close look at the sources used currently in the article and you’d see the promotionalism I make reference to. Celestina007 (talk) 01:01, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that, and I am not arguing that all of the sources in the article were non-promotional - some clearly were, and I took that into consideration with my assessment. SportingFlyer T·C 10:07, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Please read the actual articles. They're a combination of purffer and promotional interviews. It's not just Nigeria--no country's newspapers are free from this. The overall reliability of a source fddoes not necessarily extend to all the content in that source, and the pur promotionalism by a likely coi editort make this all the more obvious. DGG ( talk ) 01:38, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:54, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is clearly biased and needs a lot of work but this does not seem to fail WP:GNG. Maduka has had plenty of coverage as a gubernatorial candidate, some promotional interviews but mostly standard election coverage that prove notability. Like SportingFlyer, I don't see an argument for delete without discounting basically the entirety of Nigerian media. Watercheetah99 (talk) 23:28, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. I have found one journal article attributed to him which is Cited by 1 according to Google scholar. Uhooep (talk) 18:01, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Promotional article, not notable. MrsSnoozyTurtle 10:50, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:48, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 June 22. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:39, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It does appear that this individual has been covered extensively by RS - BBC Pidgin did a review of this individual, and it appears that this individual has been extensively covered by local Nigerian sources with regard to his attempt at the governorship of Anambra (although I make no comment on the general reliability of Nigerian sources). That said, this article is a hot mess of puffery as it stands. Best, BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}})} 18:15, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I noted and fixed some issues. Not sure about the notability of this one. Bearian (talk) 15:26, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This person has received plenty of coverage in Nigerian media, but it definitely needs cleanup. Jackattack1597 (talk) 15:31, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Oregon Herald. Daniel (talk) 23:38, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oregon State Media, Inc.

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

Both the corporation and the "news website" are lacking notability per WP:GNG- significant coverage, reliable, sources, independent of the subject. It's hard to confirm that it exists except by very raw primary sources (eg state corporate records). Further, it is far from meeting Wikipedia:WikiProject Newspapers/Notability.

Note this is NOT the historic newspaper, it's a website reusing the name.

Some history on OSMI/Oregon Herald:

The article for "Oregon Herald" (the website) was originally created in 2007 and deleted by PROD in the same year. A version must have existed in some form in 2010, and was recreated in 2011 with cleanup tags dated 2010 (so, copy/pasted).

This page, OSMI, was created in 2011 also. The organization was incorporated in 2010 and dissolved in 2018. Their address is simply a commercial post office box. Dissolution doesn't directly affect notability but still interesting. And I'm actually surprised this isn't directly part of the pink slime journalism network- that would make it MORE likely to be notable.

Related AFDs I'm creating at the same time:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. tedder (talk) 18:37, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. tedder (talk) 18:37, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom.--Surv1v4l1st ^{▌Talk|Contribs▌} 22:23, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Oregon Herald. I've searched several times in recent years for better sources and come up short. It's worthwhile that a reader who looks for this should get some info, but as stated in the nom, it certainly lacks the notability required by WP:GNG or any relevant standard including WP:WPNEWS/Notability. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 23:53, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Event Horizons BBS. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:18, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Maxey

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

There's no question Mr. Maxey exists. Either he or someone with his username created this article. He is, however, lacking in attributes that would pass WP:GNG or WP:NBIO.

His BBS existed, and he/the BBS got a few mentions (two paragraphs in a WIRED article), otherwise it's just self-promotion.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. tedder (talk) 18:28, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:49, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sourcing here is not enough to justify an article. I am less than convinced that the article on the BBS he founded meets notability guidelines either, but that can be saved for a seperate discussion on that article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:59, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Event Horizons BBS.--Surv1v4l1st ^{▌Talk|Contribs▌} 22:20, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested. Bearian (talk) 15:27, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested, provided that Event Horizons BBS makes it through AFD (which at this point looks likely). Otherwise Delete. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 17:26, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete under WP:CSD#G5 creation by a banned user. ... discospinster _talk 19:59, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ehsan Matoori

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

Vanity piece by WP:SPA. Fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:COMPOSER. Heavily refbombed but mentions are trivial so also fails WP:GNG. John B123 (talk) 18:05, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. John B123 (talk) 18:05, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. John B123 (talk) 18:05, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. John B123 (talk) 18:05, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. John B123 (talk) 18:05, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

keep It is acceptable that some sources are invalid but the rest cannot be ignored. Deleting unreliable sources still leaves a lot of good and strong sources, and I think deleting this article is cowardly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ali hep (talk • contribs) 18:46, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 22:21, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jefferson Souza Araújo Menezes

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

Article about a former footballer who made a handful of appearances in the 2007 Campeonato Brasileiro Série A while he was a member of Goiás' under-20 squad. He made one start and was substituted once the second half began, and the rest of his appearances were in the last 10 minutes of matches - a total of less than 90 minutes of play. While these appearances in the Brasileiro technically satisfy the presumption of notability in WP:NFOOTBALL, the presumption is invalid because the article comprehensively fails WP:GNG. There is no online Portuguese- or English-language coverage of this footballer which is in-depth or could be considered significant coverage (only database entries and match reports are available). Jogurney (talk) 17:50, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:17, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:17, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:17, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:27, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there is longstanding consensus that scraping by on NFOOTBALL with one or two appearances is insufficient when GNG is failed so comprehensively, as is the case here. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 11:28, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:BEFORE clearly done by nominator. I attempted to find sources myself but could not locate any coverage towards WP:GNG; only wide-ranging databases with a stats profile page about him like Sport.de Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:43, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and so should be deleted, as summed up by GS. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:40, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not enough coverage to pass general notability guidelines. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 11:50, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:29, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Slice of SciFi

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. None of the current sources are reliable secondary sources and finding reliable secondary sources is not possible using Google News as far as I can tell. TipsyElephant (talk) 17:35, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 17:35, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 17:35, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 17:35, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 17:35, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Won a couple of awards and some minor coverage, but doesn't seem significant as per WP:GNG. In any case, if kept, the article needs a significant trim of content. -Kj cheetham (talk) 20:11, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Massively overblown article for a subject that appears to fail WP:GNG Dexxtrall (talk) 22:42, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:50, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

European Conference Physics of Magnetism

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

This is a web page for the conference, not an encyclopedia article. Very few series of conferences have been considered notable in Wikipedia , because it is very rare to find substantial 3rd party reliable published sources, not press releases or blogs or postings or mere notices . Essentially every single reference here is to its own publications. DGG ( talk ) 17:08, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:18, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:18, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 00:15, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: unless there is some reliable coverage outside the field.--ReyHahn (talk) 19:16, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Without independent sourses, this should be deleted. --Bduke (talk) 11:03, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 23:39, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yentsch-Schindler Award

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

no evidence for award being notable. It's an early carer award, and it would be unlkely most of the people it is awarded to would be yet notable. There are no 3rd party refs that are not mere notices of the award being given , almost all from the news or pr sites of the university invovled. DGG ( talk ) 16:36, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Awards-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:54, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:54, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'd originally commented on the talk page being unsure if it's notable or not, but looking again now I'm fairly convinced it's not, as per the nom. -Kj cheetham (talk) 20:01, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is it appropriate to ask questions during these discussions? I went to the links on the right of this page ('new to AfD') and read all three documents. If the documents say anything about asking questions, I missed it. I hope it's OK, so I am going to move forward with my question. Full disclosure, I created this page, but I am also quite new to Wikipedia. There are a couple of early career awards on Wikipedia (with some listed at List of early career awards). In the sciences section, some of the awards listed have zero citations (e.g., Francqui Prize) while others have the bare minimum of sources (e.g., Otto Hahn Medal). Have those awards been on Wikipedia long enough that they were established under older guidelines that are no longer in use? Or, have I missed something else of note? Any input would be appreciated. Cheers. DaffodilOcean (talk) 22:22, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Asking questions is fine, and indeed encouraged. Wikipedia's standards for what can be kept and what ought to be deleted have grown Byzantine over the years, in response to the real complexity of building an encyclopedia that covers such a wide variety of topics. Sometimes, one page gets nominated for deletion while another doesn't, simply because the former page got noticed and the latter didn't. XOR'easter (talk) 00:41, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - DaffodilOcean You might be interested to take a look at WP:ATADD (in particular WP:WHATABOUT), and WP:OTHER. Hope that helps. Though to be fair I've definitely used arguments that that essay (it's not policy) says to avoid before. :) -Kj cheetham (talk) 07:55, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The information from Kj cheetham was helpful, I definitely fell into the WP:WHATABOUT category! The award does not meet notability. The other piece that I missed is from WP:LISTPEOPLE which is that the people who are receiving this award may not meet the notability requirements at WP:PROF. However, as time passes, the older names on the list are quite likely to become notable (as is already the case for the people who won the award in 2013, 2014, 2016, 2017, and 2018; not all of whom have pages yet). Thanks also to XOR'easter for answering my questions. DaffodilOcean (talk) 10:58, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was draftify. I'm IAR-closing as draftify - it appears the page's creator made a good-faith attempt to draftify the article prior to the AfD nom but messed it up and did a C&P move instead. GeneralNotability (talk) 16:18, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jesca Wilfredy

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

Sources provided are promotional and do not appear to be WP:RS in the sense that I'm not seeing that they have a strong reputation for fact checking. I also found Kenya Breaking News and Thrive Global (blacklisted site) but I have similar concerns about these sources. The last source has the tagline We publish pieces as written by outside contributors with a wide range of opinions, which don’t necessarily reflect our own. and both sources look like unreliable blogs. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:04, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:04, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:04, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:04, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:04, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:04, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted per G11 by Athaenara. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:18, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shohrat Mammadov

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

do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Fails WP:GNG, WP:SINGER GermanKity (talk) 15:36, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 15:36, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 15:36, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 15:36, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:45, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per G11. The editor who contested the deletion has made zero other edits. Best, GPL93 (talk) 01:33, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 02:35, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

11ic

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

Unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content GermanKity (talk) 15:31, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 15:31, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 15:31, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 15:31, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Current sources are questionable and mostly fall under WP:PASSING and WP:RUNOFTHEMILL, and I was unable to find any proper sources for it. IceWelder [✉] 12:44, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, not sure if the Chinese sources are reliable or not, but the subject in itself is most probably not notable. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 09:03, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. There is a clear consensus that these subpages are not appropriate, as per current policy on subpages. Whether or how to include the information contained therein is an editorial decision beyond the scope of AfD. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:52, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tasha Pointer/College Statistical Totals

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

Despite the lengthy introduction to this page, it is a subpage, which isn't allowed on enwiki. It should be changed to a template, or directly incorporated in the main article. Fram (talk) 15:25, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 15:25, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominated:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:43, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all pages with their parent articles per WP:SUB. The creator of these pages really was bold with the ignore all rules policy but in this case I don't think the end result is an improvement. Editors should be able to change information on a page without having to navigate to a transcoded subpage. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 15:56, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Qwaiiplayer, Any thoughts on how to do the merge and still preserve the ability to use VE to edit the tables? S Philbrick(Talk) 16:51, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sphilbrick, unfortunately not (I mostly edit in wikitext so I'm not really familiar with all the VE features). I'd be open to other suggestions though. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 16:56, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would much prefer that the data be totally contained within the article, rather than transclude it from sub pages. If someone can tell me how to do it in a way that will preserve the ability to use visual editor on the tables, I will do it myself. I've tried and failed to find a way to do it successfully.

If I could show both tables simultaneously, there would be no need for the Switcher template. However, some participants at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Basketball#Proposal_for_player_stats are opposed to the presentation of season totals, despite the fact that virtually all places housing player stats include such information. My use of the switcher template was an attempt to accommodate that curious position, so that they would not have to shield their eyes from the totals table, and would only see it if they chose it. If someone could help me persuade them that presenting seasoning career totals isn't so horrible, there would be no need to resort to my approach.

I investigated whether I could enclose the data the code to make it hidden, and then show only the selected data via transclusion, but that attempt failed miserably.

I did find a way to do it without the use of sub pages — see User:Sphilbrick/Stats example, but the resulting table does not appear to be editable by as a table by visual edit.

If someone can show me a way to make the two tables editable as tables by visual edit, I can easily (okay not easily but I'll do it) transition over.

I'm not wedded to the sub page option. I don't even like it. But I would like to present a more robust list of relevant statistics in tables that can be edited, so if anyone has any thoughts on how to do that without using sub pages, please let me know.--S Philbrick (Talk) 16:28, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As an aside, it's not quite correct to assert
... it is a subpage, which isn't allowed on enwiki
Curiously, Wikipedia:Subpages asserts
the subpage feature has been disabled in the English Wikipedia
which is demonstrably false. The guideline goes on to explain nine examples of allowed uses and follows that with four examples of disallowed uses, then goes on to explain at length how to create, use, and find them. I did not miss the item 3 in the disallowed list. While I am a fan of WP:IAR when appropriate, that wasn't my rationale for taking this approach. While I concede it's a close call, it is my contention that I am not using a sub page 4for permanent content meant to be part of the encyclopedia — I interpret that restriction is not wanting readers to ever have to navigate to a sub page — I felt that the permanent content is translude it to the main page so I viewed this as complying with the rules. I concede it's a close call and I would prefer an alternative solution. I hope those contributing to this discussion can provide a better option.--S Philbrick (Talk) 16:41, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm struggling even to understand what's happening (!), but as I've come across a few of these in the uncategorised feed, I can't help wondering... is AfD the appropriate forum for discussing what seems like a potentially heavy-duty policy question? Or is this indeed how 'case law' gets established, and if so, is there then some mechanism for codifying the decision for future reference? Asking for a friend. Cheers, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:55, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- No, the current policy is quite clear. From Wikipedia:Subpages#Disallowed uses bullet point 3: "Using subpages for permanent content that is meant to be part of the encyclopedia." If someone wants to change that policy, they can start an RfC at the VPP: but until then, these are not allowed, and AfD is the right forum to get them deleted. Fram (talk) 09:40, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fram, I take issue with the bald assertion that the policy is quite clear. I wasn't involved in the discussion leading to that rule soon slightly hampered, but I think it seems plausible him that those pushing for the role wanted to make sure the reader never ever has to visit a sub page. That's a reasonable goal. This doesn't violate that goal. The content of the sub page is trancluded onto the main article page, so it is transparent to the reader. An editor meeting to edit the data (which should be very rare only in the case of errors because it is historical data and should never change) needs to know how to navigate to a sub page but most editors with a two days of experience can handle that.
    It isn't at all clear that AFD is the right place for this discussion. After all, it isn't an article. Isn't AfD a place to discuss articles, whether the subject is notable whether it is supported by adequate and similar issues? NONE of those considerations apply. The data needs to be sourced but it is sourced in the article. Notability is a function of the subject which is relevant to the article not to the data trancluded into the article. The puzzlement of @DoubleGrazing: is understandable. I am trying to improve articles about women's basketball by adding career stats in the form of a table. Some members of the basketball task force pushback against the inclusion of career total as opposed to ratios. I am attempting to accommodate that view by presenting the data into tables only one of which will be immediately shown (the one including ratios) and the other will only be shown if the reader so chooses. That can be implemented with a template {{Switcher}} but it's not trivial passing tables as arguments to that template. An easy way to do it which preserves the ability to use visual enter to edit the tables is to place the data in sub pages and then transclude it. There are more cumbersome ways but it's not clear why we should invoke a cumbersome approach when there is a clean approach.
    @Elli: suggest moving to template space, but as @Nabla: points out, this doesn't make sense as each one will only be used in a single article. S Philbrick(Talk) 20:14, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Sphilbrick: we should really have a separate namespace for "templates" that are only used in one - or a few - articles, but have significant Wikitext content that it makes sense to separate out. I actually do like the idea of subpages for this purpose, but I don't think an RfC for that would succeed. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:16, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - The subpages have already been tagged (by others, not by me) as lacking categories, context, ... People do encounter these, via search, Google search, random pages, what links here, ... and then encounter an "article" which isn't an article at all. Which is basically the reason (or surely one of the main reasons) these subpages are disallowed. Fram (talk) 07:36, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - Fram, I am happy to address real issues but I'd like to stick to real issues.
        Your expressed concern that someone might accidentally stumble upon this using Google search. However, as you can see, it is noindexed, thus ~~will~~should not show up in a Google search (Of course, if you directly search for this exact name it will show up but that's true of any no indexed page, the point of no indexed is that it ~~won't~~is not supposed to show up in a general Google search.)
        I don't think it will show up if you use the random article feature. I've clicked on that button thousands of times (which I concede is short of a definitive proof) but it has never returned anything that is not an article. If it is possible, it should be corrected as the random article generator ought to generate articles not sub pages. Given that there are hundreds of thousands of legitimate sub pages (all talk page archives, for example) I find it difficult to believe that I would never have seen one of those sub pages if they could accidentally be delivered.
        DoubleGrazing mentioned stumbling across one in the uncategorized feed. I've never accessed that but I think I can guess what it might be. This sounds like a legitimate issue but could be easily addressed by creating an appropriate category. If the decision is not to sub pages I am open to suggestions for an appropriate category to help editors who managed to see them, and to make sure they do not show up in the uncategorized feed. S Philbrick (Talk) 16:16, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        Random article will only return pages in the main namespace, not in other namespaces, so logically you have never stumbled upon any talk page archives etc. But this is technically a pure article, just like any main namespace page with a "/" in the title, and will show up in "random". And it will show up in Google as well, it is the second result when I search for "Wikipedia "Tasha Pointer""[5]. Fram (talk) 16:26, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        Fram, If Google is indexing non-indexed articles, that sounds like an issue for the foundation to raise with Google not a rationale for deletion of a useful sub page. However, to be clear I am not advocating that the foundation spent any of its time on this issue unless someone can clearly identify the problem. (We have enough problems to resolve without spending time on non-problems such as this.) If someone happens to do that Google search and clicks on the link to the statistical totals, what harm has been created? I'm open to the possibility that the link to Tash Pointer should be more prominent, probably the very first entry on the page, but that simply means that the individual searching for information on Tasha has to click twice instead of once, and that only happens if they choose to ignore the first entry in the search. I'm on board with addressing real problems (I agree DoubleGrazing raised such an issue that's easy to address), but your list of issues are largely WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I am trying to make a significant improvement to basketball biographies and think I am succeeding despite the challenges. I recognize this approach is short of ideal, but within the constraints of wanting the ability to edit tables using VE, and the antipathy of some editors seeing career totals, this seemed like a reasonable approach. I've emphasized that I see this as short of perfect, outline the issues and asked for alternatives, but so far your response is simply that you don't like it so nuke it. S Philbrick (Talk) 14:57, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Move to the template namespace, which is the proper location for pages like this. If VE doesn't support editing templates, that's not really our problem - get the devs to fix it, maybe. Elli (talk | contribs) 05:00, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as unusefull (unwiki, I say) use os subpages. No point in moving to template space as they are not used across multiple articles. It is OK to merge/subst before deleting, though I doubt we need this level of statistics detail, but that is another issue - Nabla (talk) 12:17, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've just removed all of the switcher tabs from each player's article. I don't think there's much of a use for them. Feel free to revert. RGrosjean51 (talk) 12:36, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RGrosjean51, That was rather rude. This AFD is still open, and convention is that one doesn't do things like that prior to the resolution of the AFD. If you read the discussion you'll see that I didn't simply present the two tables because some members of the basketball wiki project object to seeing the totals. (Technically they object to the totals being included, but I used switcher so that they wouldn't have to see them, which I think accomplishes the same purpose.) Your removal of the template means both tables are visible on the article. Frankly, I wouldn't mind that as a result personally, but if Bagumba comes along and removes any of the totals tables I trust you will take the responsibility of dealing with that editor. We are nine days into this AFD so it is likely to be resolved shortly — what's so urgent that it couldn't have waited a couple days? S Philbrick (Talk) 14:38, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all There was zero support for this idea at WikiProject Basketball at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Basketball#Proposal_for_player_stats with Sabbatino, Howard the Duck, Crossover1370 and I all objecting. In hindsight, it appears disingenuous that Sphilbrick solicited "reactions" from the project before, when their continued one-person show on this topic apparently shows they were only interested in a rubber stamp.—Bagumba (talk) 15:20, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am astounded that Bagumba is objecting. I proposed something different at the basketball task force, and came up with this to meet the objections. I don't like how much work it is to create some subpages and use switcher but I did it specifically to address Bagumba's opposition to seeing totals. Bagumba doesn't like to see totals, so I crafted something so that this editor doesn't have to see totals. I still don't understand the objection to totals. See Harvard Crimson men's basketball statistical leaders, UCLA Bruins men's basketball statistical leaders, and 239 other examples in Category:Lists of college basketball statistical leaders by team, all of which list career, season and single-game totals without a single ratio to be seen. I am one of the more prolific editors of basketball articles and frankly don't recall any negative interactions with any of the other participants in the wiki project prior to this issue so I'm not sure what's going on but it seems difficult to believe there is this much antipathy to showing statistical totals in basketball biographies.--S Philbrick (Talk) 16:07, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just one editor. Others have disagreed with you. I'm not sure why you pinged me out of the blue, nor why you blamed RGrosjean51 and now me for the fact that you have not gotten any support for your preferred stats. You know how consensus works.—Bagumba (talk) 16:18, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bagumba, I didn't ping you out of the blue. I am specifically responding to your deletion "rationale". I couldn't use the "respond to AFD" code which would have addressed you directly because you failed to sign your post originally. I responded before you cured that problem. What on earth is going on? Have I done something to offend you? S Philbrick (Talk) 19:16, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't ping you out of the blue: You pinged me here. I was not involved in this AfD prior, nor even aware of the pages being discussed. Hence, you did ping me out of the blue.—Bagumba (talk) 03:52, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

... you failed to sign your post originally: This was my post, which shows that it's signed.—Bagumba (talk) 03:52, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Bagumba, I didn't "blamed RGrosjean51" for the lack of support, I pointed out that it's not generally considered acceptable to make substantive changes during an AFD. How are contributors to this discussion supposed to make sense of why the subpages exist given that the material is fully contained in another article and the sub page now appears to be an orphan?
Please don't misunderstand. I hope the edit by RGrosjean51 stands. I think it is a great improvement. It will make my life easier if that's the way to add the material. I prefer that approach. The only reason why I'm going through so much work is to address your objection. If you don't object to the edit by RGrosjean51, we can all go home. I'll personally delete every one of the sub pages and work on improving other articles following that model which I greatly prefer to the way I've been doing it. Does that work for you? S Philbrick (Talk) 19:36, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The only reason why I'm going through so much work is to address your objection: It was your idea to create these subpages in mainspace—not mine. Please be accountable for your actions in putting your sandbox there; you already had User:Sphilbrick/Stats example. External links to stats sites can provide readers access to this content. The WP:ONUS is on you to get consensus to add more stats directly into Wikipedia. This site is crowdsourced. Sometimes what one thinks is "essential", everyone else thinks is WP:FANCRUFT.—Bagumba (talk) 05:59, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. —Bagumba (talk) 15:22, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Basketball#Proposal_for_player_stats. There are already multiple templates for basketball statistics (which could be merged into one single template), but the editor for some reason ignored everyone in the discussion and just kept doing his/her "thing". – Sabbatino (talk) 15:39, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Sabbatino, I am not using a basketball statistics template. You correctly noted that there are a number of templates which are inconsistent. You suggested they should be merged but no one wants to bell the cat. In the absence of a useful template, i am adding the headings without a template. S Philbrick(Talk) 16:11, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - All of them are more or less the same except that the EuroLeague template has a field for Performance Index Rating (PIR), "Basketball" template has a field for "League", while the WNBA has a field for turnovers (TO). And I will once again repeat what everyone told you in the WT:NBA discussion – there is absolutely no need to list totals. That is just useless WP:FANCRUFT. – Sabbatino (talk) 20:41, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sabbatino, Are you planning an AFD for UCLA Bruins men's basketball statistical leaders or any of the other 240 members of Category:Lists of college basketball statistical leaders by team? S Philbrick(Talk) 23:23, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - Statistics at UCLA Bruins men's basketball statistical leaders are different to statistics in BLPs. Such lists like UCLA's include all sorts of statistics, while BLPs list averages. Therefore, I have serious doubts about your ability to work collaboratively if you cannot see the difference between the two pages. In addition, your "attack" on Bagumba in this AFD quite clearly shows that you are not really interested in collaboration. We already told in the discussion at WT:NBA that the consensus is to list averages in BLPs (do not make me repeat this another 100 times) but you are clearly WP:NOTGETTINGIT. – Sabbatino (talk) 06:22, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all All these subpages (containing only single tables) should be merged with their respective articles. Crossover1370 (talk | contribs) 17:47, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Crossover1370, How? S Philbrick (Talk) 19:16, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Crossover1370, Do you support the approach taken by RGrosjean51? I certainly do, and if we can get support for this we can close this discussion. S Philbrick(Talk) 19:37, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - The tables should be included in the players' articles themselves, rather than being transcluded from a subpage. This is how it works on most basketball players' articles. So yes, I support RGrosjean51's approach. Crossover1370 (talk | contribs) 19:59, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Crossover1370, I agree. If we can get support from Bagumba and Sabbatino I'll be happy to delete all the sub pages and we can close this as moot. S Philbrick (Talk) 23:16, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The supposed consensus is summarized at this diff.

I suppose this (three people plus the great majority of the internet) should act as a consensus now?

There are thousands of editors of basketball articles, but I'm supposed to accept that three editors constitute a consensus? That's not how consensus works. It may be that we need a proper RFC to resolve the issue. That editor also made the assertion that the great majority of the Internet prefers ratios. That's demonstrably false as I provided example after example of sites that use both and sometimes only totals. There is a slight preference for totals over ratios among the major sites, and that was before I stumbled across the 241 Wikipedia articles listing only totals. I honestly think that pointing out their world view was flawed caused them to double down on opposition to anything I propose. Perhaps it's the case that the NBA stats emphasize averages, but there's more to basketball than the NBA. My cursory review of these three editors suggests they are not major contributors to articles about women's basketball, my main area of interest. If they would like to propose that articles about NBA players emphasize averages, that's fine with me. Perhaps I should've just stuck to editing articles about women's basketball and not gotten involved in wiki project basketball but I notice the inconsistency of statistic templates and honestly thought there would be some collaboration about how to improve the presentation.

I honestly never expected such antipathy and vitriol from experienced editors interested in basketball. I know there are some fans of male basketball teens that look down upon women's teams but I naïvely hoped that Wikipedia editors would be better than that.

I don't accept the three editors who don't like totals constitutes a consensus, but I wasn't up for fighting a battle so I thought I'd try to be clever and come up with a presentation that could include the information for readers but wouldn't put it in the face of these three editors if they happen to stumble across the article. Again, perhaps I'm too naïve. Coverage of women's basketball is far less extensive then it is of the male counterpart. That's hardly surprising and I'm not asking any of these three editors to help rectify the situation. I'm happy to work on that along with other members of the women's basketball task force, but if they don't want to help, can they please stop actively fighting me? I honestly thought my approach might achieve my goal without treading on their abhorrence for seeing totals in an article, but I was wrong. As noted above, I am happy to follow the approach consistent with RGrosjean51's edit—it's frankly a lot easier for me than creating sub pages or using switcher with tables, but my fear was that approach would lead to these editors similarly deleting information about totals from women's basketball articles. I'll even promise never to add statistics to a biography about NBA players if that's their concern.

Despite the absurd claim:

I don't think basketball has as much emphasis on magic number milestones for totals like other sports

There are thousands of examples of women being celebrated for milestones such as a 1000 points or 2000 points in a career, a thousand rebounds and other milestones such as double-doubles and triple doubles. Maybe it's different in the men's game, I don't really follow it, but the notion that we shouldn't report such information because it's cruft is abject nonsense.

I can't emphasize too strongly that I have no particular desire to retain subpages for the holding of statistics – I created them in an attempt to address the concerns of three editors and it appears they aren't on board with the approach. I prefer to have the information in the article itself as several other contributors to this discussion have proposed, but my fear is the 60 or so articles I've improved over the last three weeks will be eviscerated if I follow that approach. If I get any assurances that won't happen, I will happily remove the sub pages myself.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sphilbrick (talk • contribs) 12:39, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If the totals are to be included in the article, they should be included in the main article, not in a subpage. As for totals and women's basketball, I have browsed through the articles of several high-profile WNBA players and don't see a single one with totals. I don't know how these players' totals warrant inclusion in their articles. Crossover1370 (talk | contribs) 23:37, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to J2 Global#Brands and subsidiaries. Clear consensus for the page not to exist (delete + merge), so per ATD, closing as merge & redirect. Daniel (talk) 23:40, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

StrongVPN

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

advertising or promotion Chief Minister (Talk) 15:41, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Chief Minister (Talk) 15:41, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article meets WP:GNG. It has significant coverage in independent reliable secondary sources. PhotographyEdits (talk) 15:44, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing more than basic program spam. PRAXIDICAE🌈 15:51, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While I don't believe that it's quite spam, I cannot find any independent sourcing outside of reviews.--🌀Locomotive207-talk🌀 17:03, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Seems like a pretty clear cut case of not being notable and border line spam/promotional. SamStrongTalks (talk) 02:49, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to J2 Global#Brands and subsidiaries: Not notable enough to warrant its own article. It's best to briefly discuss it in the target article. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, since I already casted my vote and others are disagreeing. I don't see any problems with reviews. They provide significant, independent reliable coverage of the subject. They are published by TechRadar (who calls it "a major VPN brand"), ZDNet, Tom's Hardware and PCWorld who all meet the WP:RS requirements. Apart from the reviews, the subject is mentioned in works published by academic publishers like Springer Publishing and Association for Computing Machinery and the acquisition has been mentioned in the news. Based on these sources, the subject can have a standalone article per WP:GNG, and can also be extended. The article is written with WP:NPOV in mind, I don't think it is promotional or spam at all. Also, the article has been extended since being nominated. Above of that, the nominator has been accused here of improper nominations and not following WP:BEFORE. PhotographyEdits (talk) 19:51, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is interesting, but beside the point. The nominator is not being discussed here, the article is. The article subject actually fails GNG, as 'mentions' don't have weight in SIGCOV. GenQuest ^"scribble" 01:48, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No defining features that make it unique, or notable. scope_creep^Talk 21:46, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is checked by validating sources against WP:GNG, which is fine in this case. Also, please read WP:IGNORINGATD. PhotographyEdits (talk) 08:46, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to J2 Global#Brands and subsidiaries as WP:ATD. With what's currently in the article a brief section on the parent companies article seems like a good solution. Jumpytoo Talk 03:28, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Jumpytoo Talk 03:28, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 15:21, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as just another, non-notable program; or Merge a (referenced) line to J2 Global#Brands and subsidiaries as suggested above. GenQuest ^"scribble" 01:36, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Putting my reply here so it is clear it was posted after the relisting. @GenQuest: I was only discussing the nominator after stating my relevant argument. And the article does not fail WP:GNG, you are reading my comment the wrong way. It is only 'just' mentioned in the academic source by ACM. In the Springer article, there is a paragraph about their logging policy. The reviews I mentioned earlier definitely provide SIGCOV (and all the other aspects required for the GNG). Please evaluate them yourself before voting delete. I am still voting keep. PhotographyEdits (talk) 15:31, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, multiple sources are cited. NemesisAT (talk) 21:49, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:21, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Roxy Blue

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

No indication of meeting notability criteria. Shortlived band that reformed and released a second record since previous article deleted, but no significant coverage. noq (talk) 11:10, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:16, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:16, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - They were a rock band on a major label in the early '90s, when the print journalism model was still robust and ensured coverage of every little thing, all over North America. The band, their debut, and their reunion are covered by Billboard, Chicago Tribune, Waterloo Region Record, Newsday, Houston Chronicle, San Francisco Chronicle, The Chattanoogan, etc. I've never been that clear on which charts are "Wikipedia-notable", but the debut and a single were on the Heatseekers and Rock ones for a few weeks. Almost worth keeping for their truly moronic album art alone. ;) Caro7200 (talk) 12:42, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
keep - due to the sources provided by Atlantic306 (talk) it passes WP:MUSICBIO . Samat lib (talk) 08:47, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep exercising WP:AGF the sources identified by Caro 7200 are enough for WP:GNG, will provide links in a couple of days, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 01:56, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 14:45, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Update all I could find is here, here, here and confirmation of Billboard charting here and here, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:09, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 15:20, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per sources provided by Atlantic306, passes WP:MUSICBIO — Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 14:13, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:48, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Heimdal™ Security

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

Non notable organization that fails to satisfy WP:NCORP as they lack in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. A before search turns up nothing cogent despite the claim that they are present in 6 countries. Celestina007 (talk) 14:41, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 14:41, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 14:41, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 14:41, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 14:41, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 14:41, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 14:41, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 14:41, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, pure promo piece on a non-notable ROTM business. (Also likely UPE/COI, judging by the creating editor's user name and a quick look at the company website.) --DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:52, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't see the previous instance which was rejected at AfC and then deleted, but the comments left by reviewer Rich Smith on the article creator's Talkpage [6] look equally applicable to this newly-created instance. The article text does no more than describe the staffing and commercial history of a company going about its business, with no claim to encyclopaedic notability, and supported by references which fall under trivial coverage at WP:CORPDEPTH. Searches find more routine coverage of opening of offices, etc., but also past coverage of a problem in their software (BBC News: "Security flaw put RBS customers at risk of cyber-attack"). Were the article to survive, information about that incident should be added to the text and references. However I don't see that as evidence of attained notability for the firm. Nor is there an article on the acquiring firm Marlin Equity Partners which could serve as a merge/redirect target. AllyD (talk) 07:35, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per AllyD's comment. I rejected the same or very similar article at AfC, and it looks like they somehow obtained Autoconfirmed early (as they have not made 10 edits) and made a new one in mainspace. - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 20:04, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:28, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stormy Weather (Miraculous episode)

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

No indication this is a notable episode. It's basically an overly-detailed discussion of the plot. Sources do not discuss or critique the episode, they're just listings of when it aired. ... discospinster _talk 14:25, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 14:25, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 14:25, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Discospinster: it's also a direct copy-paste from here - I think just a straight G12 would be most appropriate, as it's everything, including the images (also tagged on commons). Ravensfire (talk) 14:29, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I thought of that, but the Fandom content is CC-BY-SA licensed, so it wouldn't be a copyvio as long as it was properly tagged. ... discospinster _talk 14:33, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

True (forgot about that), but of course, there's no attribution anywhere (now added). I'll review on the merits of the AFD request. Ravensfire (talk) 14:50, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Minimal sources (and most of them not very good) that don't support the notability of this episode, overly detailed plot copied from Fandom article. Ravensfire (talk) 14:59, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per the nom as I think this article is better suitable for the Fandom article and not on here. Pahiy (talk) 15:47, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nommed; no indication why this individual episode warrants a standalone article. (And please — let's not turn Wikipedia into a Fandom mirror!) --DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:01, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:31, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coke Daniels

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

Completely unreferenced article about a film director, not making any strong claim to passage of WP:CREATIVE. This literally just says that he exists and then lists his filmography without any content to contextualize its significance -- but as always, the notability test for film directors is not automatically passed just because the work exists, and instead requires evidence that he passes WP:GNG on third-party coverage and analysis about his work in reliable sources. And while two of his films have their own articles, one features absolutely no properly sourced indication of notability per WP:NFILM at all, and the other is of debatable notability at best as it's still in the production pipeline and has not yet seen a confirmed release date. Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be the subject of a lot more independent coverage and analysis than this. Bearcat (talk) 14:21, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:21, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:21, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet WP:CREATIVE or WP:GNG. I found credits and some brief mentions, including a flurry of recent articles about fans criticizing the trailer for his recent film Karen, but no significant coverage of the individual as a director or in any other capacity. Schazjmd (talk) 17:03, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I have a feeling this will be revived and recreated by others if the Karen film continues to get mocked, but as Bearcat says, the subject isn't notable enough at this point to warrant an article. (At the absolute least, the article, at least in its current form, should be moved to draftspace if it is kept.) – Broccoli & Coffee ^{(Oh hai)} 18:07, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 10:25, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is high time we stopped allowing articles sourced only to unreliable sources. This article has 0 reliable sources and so should be deleted.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:36, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources, per nom. -Justiyaya (talk) 02:33, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Absolutely zero reliable sources that demonstrate notability. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 12:05, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wait. This guy, whether you like his new movie or not, has absolutely captured the Zeitgeist. Keep for now. The latest effort is already notorious and highly publicised. No point in deleting yet. Let it play out, at least see how the film does. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.11.228.154 (talk) 01:37, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:33, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Virtual Team Maturity Model (VTMM)

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

Not notable business process. Was published as a doctoral thesis by Dr. Ralf Friedrich, but has received very few citations. It is being commercialized by a very small company (micro company according to this) which would be A7able, but the article is on the process. This does not meet GNG.

Noting this was created with a tag this was accepted at AfC, yet I don't quite see where that happened if at all (The Draft:Virtual Team Maturity Model appears unreviewed, and this would see to be a copy paste move by the creator with the AfC acceptance tag). Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 14:13, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 14:13, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 14:13, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per WP:G11. JBchrch talk 14:23, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to User:Eostrix - The tag that you are commenting on is wrong. It means that there is an AFC submission template in a page that is in article space. This can happen, as the display says, if the draft was accepted, but the AFC script did not complete. As you noted, this more often means that there was either a copy-paste move or an actual Move. The draft may even have been declined in AFC. The article should be reviewed, and usually cannot be moved to draft space because there is already a draft. The article often needs to be taken to AFD, as this one was. The tag is wrong. A few reviewers have been complaining about the wording of the tag for years, and no one seems to care about the incorrect tag. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:24, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable business process model. As noted by nominator, developed as a Ph.D. thesis that has not been cited much since. Reads like an abstract of the thesis describing the model. Was first submitted to Articles for Creation in draft. When the draft was not reviewed quickly (and AFC is still backlogged), it was then copy-pasted into article space, which can either indicate an attempt to game the system or impatience with the review process. The latter, impatience, is the good-faith explanation; the draft, which is the same as this article, would have been declined. Originator may be a single-purpose account publicizing the business process model, whether due to a conflict of interest or otherwise. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:01, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Bordering on WP:G11/WP:A7 territory. Best, GPL93 (talk) 01:21, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:34, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Frenky Irawan

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

This footballer's brief career never rose to the level of meeting WP:NFOOTBALL; according to Tribuna, no professional club appearances and I can't find him on other databases. Playing U23 football for Indonesia does not confer notability either.

An Indonesian search fails to yield significant coverage of the subject. In fact, coverage fails to extend beyond passing mentions in match reports for his 3 U23 appearances for Indonesia, such as Goal.com and Football Tribe. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:00, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:00, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:00, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:00, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:03, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 14:18, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. A WP:BEFORE has clearly been done to try and find non-English sources. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:14, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 04:24, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't meet notability criteria. Non notable player. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 12:22, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:34, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Siamak Baharloo

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

Fails WP:GNG. Looks like most of the sources are puff pieces and press releases, as well as some primary sources. I just speedy deleted Labviva, the subject's company, which has been repeatedly created by the author of this article. Bbb23 (talk) 13:58, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:04, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:05, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't meet GNG. While some of his early academic work is well cited, his h-index is below 10 and he doesn't tick off any of the NPROF criteria.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 14:23, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't meet general notability guidelines. Rondolinda (talk) 20:38, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks notability, no reliable sources found for the information mentioned.Aloolkaparatha (talk) 04:03, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No reliable sources, no evidence of notability. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 11:56, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Ultrasonic Broadcasting System. (non-admin closure) ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 06:05, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DXLJ

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

Could be a redirect, but does not meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:51, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:55, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:55, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: NMEDIA, whether Onel5969 likes this or not, covers this, as does GNG. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:25, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This fails GNG on its face - none of the references are all of significant, independent, and reliable. NMEDIA doesn't matter if GNG isn't met. SportingFlyer T·C 14:59, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The source presented below which "demonstrates a WP:GNG pass" is a trivial mention in a six-sentence article about something completely different. The article does not yet pass GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 13:15, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Sources 1 and 2 state that the station is licensed by the NTC. Source 3 indicates part of the station's programming. That said, the article is good enough to pass both WP:NMEDIA and WP:GNG. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- If anyone is thinking of arguing with me over my views, don't bother responding. I'm not gonna waste my time on arguing. My keep stands. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Superastig: I'm not sure that's what you want to say; a self-confessed WP:ICANTHEARYOU will be a slam-dunk T-ban at ANI...

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:09, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ultrasonic Broadcasting System as an alternative to deletion, per WP:CHEAP, WP:PRESERVE, etc. NMEDIA is not a community-endorsed guideline, and so rationales relying it are not policy-based, as several closers have concluded. The coverage is woefully inadequate for GNG purposes, consisting entirely of trivial or even unrelated coverage. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:25, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:ATD-R, and if necessary protect the redirect if there's uany attempt to circumvent this process by a subsequrnt recreation. Redirects themselves don't have to pass GNG, so that's not an issue; they just have to be a reasonable search term. But the sourcing here is woefully inadequate for a stand alone article. ——Serial 11:33, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:BCASTOUTCOMES and WP:GNG per Astig's and Neutralhomer's argument. SBKSPP (talk) 00:29, 26 June 2021 (UTC)— Note to closing admin: SBKSPP (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]
Comment - simply saying something passes GNG, when it clearly doesn't, is not really a good way to win folks over to your side. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:16, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ultrasonic Broadcasting System. The station doesn't yet meet the GNG, and this is an accepted ATD. I've tried to stay off the bench in these radio station topics (given that I'm one of the primary promoters of a rewrite of NMEDIA and these AfDs are part of that story), but as it is at least already clear that any SNG version of NMEDIA will be fundamentally aligned with the GNG, we can use that for now. There is no significant coverage at all. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 17:24, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Glennznl (talk) 08:00, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient Indian scripts

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

This article has been created by a series of cut and paste moves from other articles. Wikipedia requires attribution when material is copied from one article to another. The does not add much compared to Brahmic scripts and is a case of WP:CONTENTFORK. Besides that, the scope also has a big problem, what even is "ancient"? The Indus and Multani scripts are seperated by about 4500 years in earliest attestations. So then, are we just talking about "scripts found in the subcontinent of India"? Then why not include Latin and Arabic too, both with centuries of usage. I don't see a reason to keep this article Glennznl (talk) 12:55, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:01, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:01, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:05, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable subject. The article says 'found' as in 'discovered', 'invented', etc. Accesscrawl (talk) 06:33, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Accesscrawl: I don't see what you are refering to, as the word "found" is not found in the text even once. The subject is not notable either, as I clearly described the issues with the scope of the article.

Noteworthy too, is that the creator of the article has been banned for being a suck-puppet user. --Glennznl (talk) 07:36, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of programs previously broadcast by GMA Network. Any further discussion regarding the redirect target can happen outside this AfD. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 13:15, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mel & Jay

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

This article fails WP:GNG. ----Rdp060707|talk 12:24, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:53, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:53, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:53, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Partners Mel and Jay. Fails WP:TVSHOW per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 00:51, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:03, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:05, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Partners Mel and Jay. Per SBKSPP's comment. Pahiy (talk) 15:51, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of programs previously broadcast by GMA Network. Partners Mel and Jay isn't notable too. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 12:47, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of programs broadcast by GMA Network. As per HueMan1's comment. Pahiy (talk) 19:46, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Deep Purple discography#Live albums. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 12:45, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Space Vol 1 & 2

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

I can't find any sources that say anything more than "This is a bootleg by Deep Purple given a limited official release". That's not enough for an article. And is it a legitimate redirect target? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:33, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:53, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Deep_Purple_discography#Live_albums as there's not enough content for an article (fails WP:NALBUM), but it is part of the discography (albeit a bootleg) Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:26, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. And can we please go totally mentl over it, thereby avoiding the elaborate charade of having a calm and reasoned discussion when we could be going totally bananas. ——Serial 14:13, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Deep_Purple_discography#Live_albums - I will go with the flow on this one, simply because a redirect may be useful in the event that fans search for the title. But on the other hand there is no evidence that this unauthorized bootleg was ever noticed beyond a few obsessive collectors. Also note that the discography section to which we are a redirecting has several other items of similar concern. (P.S. Kudos to Serial for the DP lyrics reference.) ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:08, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 23:41, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SMC Hickton Madeley Architects

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

Fails WP:NCORP. No coverage. Dead company. scope_creep^Talk 10:51, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:05, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:05, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:05, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I could not find anything more about this firm than directory entries and passing mentions. So, it seemingly fails WP:GNG. - Tristan Surtel (talk) 12:05, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:35, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 06:01, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Straus

AfDs for this article:

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

This article fails WP:NBIO on a number of levels and should be deleted. As written, this article fails WP:GNG as the individual appears to have NOT “received significant awards or honors” and has NOT “made a widely recognized contribution that is part of an enduring historical record in a specific field.” Further, the only national coverage pertains to a claim of fraud, which, based on a review of the sources, would not even rise to the level to be considered for WP:CRIME as noted: “A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person.” As a perpetrator, this person fails WP:perp as the victim is not “a renowned national or international figure, including, but not limited to, politicians or celebrities AND “The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy—such that it is a well-documented historic event. Generally, historic significance is indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role.” If no consensus is reached on this second AFD, based on the need for additional WP:RS, editors should consider WP:Draftify GhostDust (talk) 04:15, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:39, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:39, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:39, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Survived previous AFD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:49, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:35, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The standard for the GNG isn't “received significant awards or honors” and “made a widely recognized contribution that is part of an enduring historical record in a specific field.” The subject just needs to receive "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." There are more than enough references in the article that meet this criteria (e.g. [7] [8] [9] [10] and the offline sources such as [11] and [12]). In addition, I believe the subject meets WP:NPROF since he meets the criterion of "The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources" as a widely cited author of academic papers (see Google Scholar). Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:41, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of coverage in reliable sources over the course of multiple years easily satisfies the notability requirements. Mlb96 (talk) 03:12, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:06, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Samvo Group

AfDs for this article:

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

No further reliable sources exist. Fails WP:corp “has received no or very little notice from independent sources.” Existing sources are little more than blog posts. Has not received coverage in multiple RELIABLE secondary sources that are independent of the subject (fails wp:orgcrite). Fails WP:oprigind. Article does not meet guidelines for WP:GNG. GhostDust (talk) 03:48, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 06:07, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 06:07, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An article on a betting broker, with a history of WP:SPA WP:COI editing both before and after the previous AfD (which closed as no-consensus due to lack of participation, possibly would have been treated like an expired PROD nowadays?). The combination of listings, PR and blog items which serve as the article references (and are as they were at the first AfD) are insufficient, and searches on Samvo Group, SamvoBetBroker. etc. are not finding WP:RS coverage of the firm or of its apparent demise in 2017. Fails WP:NCORP. AllyD (talk) 06:21, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:52, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:10, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:11, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no significant news coverage. Google news has nothing on them. Webmaster862 (talk) 08:52, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think care needs to be taken when using search engines when assessing notability (WP:GOONOTE and WP:HITS), I found the Spiegel and SCMP articles (below) on the last page of my search results on Google News. IndentFirstParagraph (talk) 17:01, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Eden, Scott (2014-06-01). "For World Cup, Betting Flows Through Banker-Turned-Bookie". Bloomberg News. Archived from the original on 2021-06-19. Retrieved 2021-06-19.
  This article is an extensive profile of Samvo. The article notes, "The name of the company, Samvo Entertainment Ltd., offers little insight into the business being conducted here, Bloomberg Pursuits will report in Summer 2014 issue. Samvo is a brokerage firm -- a bet brokerage firm -- whose clients are among the richest professional-sports-gambling syndicates in the world. ... Founded a decade ago by a former Hong Kong investment banker named Frank Chan, Samvo acts as a middleman."
2. Kelso, Paul (2012-04-13). "Police raid British bookmaker for third time amid German investigation into match-fixing". The Daily Telegraph. Archived from the original on 2012-04-13. Retrieved 2021-06-19.
  The article notes about Samvo: "A British-registered bookmaker has been searched three times by police in connection with the largest criminal match-fixing inquiry ever undertaken in Europe, Telegraph Sport can disclose." The article provides detailed discussion about the company's background.
3. Spapens, Toine (2021) [2017]. "Match-Fixing". In Nelen, Hans; Siegel, Dina (eds.). Contemporary Organized Crime: Developments, Challenges and Responses. Cham: Springer Nature. p. 138. ISBN 978-3-030-56591-6. Retrieved 2021-06-19.
  The book notes: "Ante Sapina, one of the main suspects in the Bochum case, made a peculiar statement in court claiming that he had fixed matches for gambling company Samvo Entertainment Limited (Der Spiegel 2011). Samvo, based in London but owned by Hong Kong businessman and politician Shung Fai Chan, strongly denied Sapina's story, and no proof to substantiate it could be found. It did transpire, however, that one of Samvo's employees had noticed the predictive value of Sapina's bets and started to copy them for his personal benefit (Spapens 2012)."
  "Spapens 2012" refers to the source: Spapens, T. (2012). Prijs! The Hague: Boom Lemma uitgevers.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Samvo to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 09:41, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cunard. With regard to subject-specific guidelines, the Bloomberg article is extensive and clearly satisfies WP:ORGCRIT. The Telegraph article does not go into as much detail, but still satisfies WP:ORGDEPTH and thus WP:ORGCRIT. I also consider Cunard's third source, this article from the SCMP, and this German article from the Spiegel significant and reliable sources — WP:ILLCON (which suggests that organisations ought not be considered notable only on the basis of sources covering its criminal conduct) does not apply, as all three discuss more than 'purely' the criminal conduct. The company, on the basis of these sources, passes WP:NCORP. I can nevertheless see why its Wikipedia article was AfDed, given its current state. IndentFirstParagraph (talk) 17:01, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:35, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as WP:CSD#G5. ✗plicit 12:58, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Voice of Islam Radio

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

Non-notable radio station, article only cites their own website as source, and a search finds nothing even resembling RS sigcov, hence fails WP:GNG. I can't see the subject meeting WP:NRADIO, either.

This has been repeatedly declined at AfC, and an earlier speedy tag was removed by a mystery IP editor, hence the need to test notability here at AfD. (There is also possible COI editing by a SPA, just as a side note.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:28, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:28, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:28, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:28, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:28, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is clearly WP:G11. Not so immediately obvious is that it is WP:G5 (block evasion by VOIuk (talk · contribs)). Tagged as such. (Pro tip-- when you are evading your block, don't draw attention to the fact.) --Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:55, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Good catch, I missed that completely. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:58, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 07:06, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TB Crossroads, Virginia

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

Oftentimes, you can find at least something for the places with unusual names, but I turned up nothing useful for this one. Newspapers.com gives me scanner errors for "the crossroads", Google search brings up stuff about tuberculosis, and Google books brings up an appearance on a soil survey map and trivial listings in USGS directories of all known place names in Virginia. The topos don't even agree where this is; ones from the 1940s have it in one place, while ones from the 1960s and later have TB Crossroads on a different road a decent bit to the east. It's unclear what (or even really where) this place is/was, so I'm not seeing any evidence of notability. Hog Farm _Talk 03:43, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 03:43, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 03:43, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 09:42, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Mass-produced junk, not shown to be a notable place. Reywas92^Talk 21:55, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:03, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Calvin E. Wright

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

This does not meet WP:GNG BasedMises_{Mont Pelerin} 04:00, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:44, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:44, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As auditor, he passes WP:NPOL as a state-level officeholder, and in any event the GNG-qualifying coverage is myriad: see, e.g., 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:28, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 09:41, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. State Auditor is a statewide elected office (now renamed State Controller). Wright was elected State Auditor three times. Also twice a candidate for Governor, once a major party nominee. Pages of statewide elected officials other than Governor are commonplace. I recently updated this page to include his role in a historic political event in 1974 when a Congressman was revealed to not be filing income tax returns for several years. Also the seminal litigation Wright v. Callahan on constitutional offices of state officials was embellished to include the extent of the case being cited in nine different states in the past eight decades in subsequent decisions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abrunelle (talk • contribs) 05:19, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If people want us to keep this article they should add reliable sources. Find a grave is not a reliable source, and verifiability means we should not keep articles without reliable sources. Without a reliable source how can we even know he was really state auditor. If people find a source they should add it to the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:17, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep on further review I see some of the sources were added to the article. I would still like to see much better citation style for these sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:20, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article does meet WP:GNG – and, importantly, also WP:NPOL. SportingFlyer T·C 15:44, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: Statewide elected officials are notable, per WP:NPOL. Curbon7 (talk) 21:55, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Daniel (talk) 23:41, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aeris Williams

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

Routine college athlete, fails WP:NGRIDIRON and WP:GNG. UW Dawgs (talk) 08:24, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:50, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:50, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:28, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 09:41, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a run-of-the mill college athlete who does not meet the relevant inclusion criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:57, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not a routine athlete. He was Mr. Football in the State of Mississippi, a 1,000+ yard rusher at Division I FBS football power Mississippi State, and a Doak Walker Award candidate. A quick search (not exhaustive) reveals a good deal of WP:SIGCOV. E.g., (1) here (profile in USA Today), (2) here (also USA Today), (3) part 1/part 2, (4) here, (5) here, (6) here, (7) part 1/part 2, (8) part 1/part 2, (9) here, (10) here, (11) here, (12) here, (13) here, (14) here, (15) here, (16) here, (17) here, and (18) here. Cbl62 (talk) 21:00, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC, per the sources provided by Cbl62. Ejgreen77 (talk) 11:29, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per Cbl62. USA Today profile looks to be enough to me, if added. Suriname0 (talk) 14:31, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to George Cambridge, 2nd Marquess of Cambridge. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:19, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lady Mary Whitley

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

The article has been tagged as unsourced for 5 years. A cursory search on Google Books reveals no indication of the subject's notability. Apparently the only reason we have the article is that she was distantly related to the British queen; but that is not a valid reason, nor is Wikipedia a genealogy website. Surtsicna (talk) 09:24, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 09:24, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 09:24, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 09:24, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 09:24, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~, essentially per nom. The only coverage that I can find consists only of trivial coverage (e.g. a passing mention in a list) or routine stories (e.g. pregnancy announcements), none of which is enough to meet WP:BASIC. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:45, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't object to a merge as proposed by Furius. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 16:17, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into George Cambridge, 2nd Marquess of Cambridge (essentially just noting her dates, who she married, that she didn't exercise any royal duties, and her offspring). Furius (talk) 17:25, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:17, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as suggested. There's not enough sourcing. Bearian (talk) 15:31, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 13:44, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Hüter

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

There are no reliable sources availabe for this person. He is not well-known. --ZemanZorg (talk) 04:12, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Some sources, such as the articles from Focus Online, are generally considered reliable. Most other sources are at least not considered unreliable. For other sources, such as his personal website or YouTube videos, we have a source tag. However, these sources are not a problem with regard to neutrality if you look at what they are used.

He is one of the most famous school critics and unschooling proponents in the German-speaking world.--Maxeto0910 (talk) 14:27, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 May 29. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:54, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:47, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:47, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:47, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 17:54, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:59, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - What is the subject notable for? There is no assertion of notability in any reliable sources that I can find. --ARose Wolf 19:17, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Peter303x (talk) 08:11, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, apparently self-published author, complete absence of reliable sources. The FOCUS pages are articles by the subject. Fails WP:GNG. —Kusma (talk) 10:27, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Kusma. MrsSnoozyTurtle 10:57, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 13:49, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jabez Chickering (minister)

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

no evidence for notability . American churchmen in the 17th century may be notable for historical interest even if there's nothing special to say, but I don't think this extends to the late 18th century. Norwood Mass. was by then neither pioneer nor missionary territory. DGG ( talk ) 08:50, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:21, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:21, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:21, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In an article just a few sentences long, there are multiple sources that discuss him. He may not be of wide renown, but he passes GNG. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 13:31, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Certainly several sources namedrop him. Which of the listed reliable, independent sources do you assert give the subject the "substantial coverage" the GNG requires? Ravenswing 00:24, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Ravenswing, I have added a few additional sources. Certainly the Fanning biography of him (and the one of his wife) and the Lee treatment of the Chickering/ Haven family are substantial. Hurd and Slafter have biographies that are brief but clearly go beyond trivial mentions. I would also argue that many of the others, while not covering him in great depth, also go beyond trivial mentions. He may not be the central figure in them, but his name appears several times. The format of Grove, for example, doe not permit for lengthy treatments, but several facts about him are still expressed. Tolles is a similar case. The book is the story of a community, and Chickering features prominently in it, albeit at different times and in different contexts. It's not just name dropping. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 02:42, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I will add that "multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability". Here we have nine different books that discuss him to varying degrees, plus a number of newspapers, etc. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 16:45, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 13:53, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Peter303x (talk) 08:01, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Butthe multiple independent sources have to add up to something that's actually notable , not just to the collection of miscellaneous routine facts about his life. The nearest thing to substantial is is role in helping foundi the library--but theee doesn't seem evidence that he's responsible, just that he joined with 25 other is founding it, who were probably all the people in town who had some social pretensions and a little money. The problem with using local histories of this sort is that they are basically indiscriminate, including whatever they can get about whomever they can get. Two of the books are published by a specialist local and neighborhood history publisher, the others by publishers associated with thetown or the town newspaper. Books by such publishers aren't RS for notabilityany more than college yearbooks, important as they are to geneologists, . --if there had been substantial coverage from even one general publisher I might say differently, but for that o happen thee would have needed something worth publishing. GNG is a guideline, but it's dependent on the policies of NOT DIRECTORY and NOT INDISCRIMINAATE. DGG ( talk ) 11:30, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lacks substantial coverage to meet WP:NBIO. MrsSnoozyTurtle 10:54, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nominator withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:44, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A.S.D. Cagliese Calcio

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

This has been in CAT:NN's backlog for 12 years, and I think that is due to lack of notability rather than neglect. It exists, but not enough coverage or significance for a stand-alone article. Boleyn (talk) 08:00, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:22, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:22, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:32, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to source this several months ago and it's not impossible, local coverage exists like [13] [14] [15]. We'd probably have an article on it if the sources were in English, but I can't make a strong argument to keep. SportingFlyer T·C 09:42, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - played in Serie D, which is sufficient as that is the top level of amateur football in Italy and clubs play in the national cup, the standard benchmark for club notability. There is coverage as shown above. Needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 10:24, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination per convincing comments above. Thanks for helping to resolve this. Boleyn (talk) 06:27, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Izumi Takemoto. ✗plicit 05:47, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aoi-chan Panic!

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

I'm aware I may be missing something due to my lack of knowledge of Japanese language and culture, but I could find nothing to establish notability. Like this, its Japanese article has no clear references and is more a synopsis of the story. This has been in CAT:NN's backlog for 12 years, and I think that is due to lack of notability rather than neglect. Boleyn (talk) 07:52, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:28, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:30, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Was unable to find any reliable sources to incorporate, fails notability guidelines. Waxworker (talk) 23:51, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Izumi Takemoto as a related topic per WP:ATD. Link20XX (talk) 08:58, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Izumi Takemoto as WP:ATD as per Link20XX. Jumpytoo Talk 22:55, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as WP:CSD#G5. ✗plicit 12:59, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

When Cinderella becomes a boy Part 3 (2020 film)

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

Films are not eligible for A7 or A9. This film does exist. Other than existence, it has no notability or coverage. Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 07:51, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 07:51, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 07:51, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 07:51, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy~~ delete, ~~hoax.~~ not notable. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 07:59, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@HueMan1: I would like to speedy it, but it does actually exist and is not eligible for other criteria (it is not a G11, it does not qualify as a film for A7 or A9, and I can't find a G12). See IMDB or their facebook promo. It is in no way notable. There's a bunch of Simple English pages, recently created, that probably also need deletion: Hearty Channel and Blue Star Entertainment Philippines Film (would be A7 on English Wikipedia), Cinderella boy Part 3, Cinderella boy (2019 short film).--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 08:11, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CalabazaFénix2 under WP:G5 Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:28, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged as G5 due to the SPI confirmation.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 11:10, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Spiderone and hueman1 SHB2000 (talk) 11:54, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Anonymous 7481 (talk) 12:44, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Miyuki Kitagawa. ✗plicit 05:46, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ano Ko ni 1000%

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:NOTABILITY. Also no sources and in CAT:NN's backlog for 12 years - and I think this is lack of notability rather than neglect. Possible ATDs are redirect to writer or publisher. Boleyn (talk) 07:49, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:51, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:52, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Searching for 「あのこに1000%」(the actual title) brings nothing. If the stub on Miyuki Kitagawa (the author) is worthwhile, then redirect it there; if not, then delete. (So is the stub on Miyuki Kitagawa worthwhile? Well, currently it consists of a list and three short sentences. Two of these three contain personal information/misinformation, and are unreferenced. Could the Japanese article about her be mined for material? No, it's a stereotypically dismal ja:WP pop culture article: mostly a series of lists, plus a few mostly unreferenced sentences.) -- Hoary (talk) 08:41, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Was unable to find any reliable sources to incorporate, fails notability guidelines. Waxworker (talk) 00:07, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Miyuki Kitagawa as WP:ATD (her notability can be discussed in a separate AfD). Did not find anything, only passing mentions. Jumpytoo Talk 02:11, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Miyuki Kitagawa as a related topic. Link20XX (talk) 08:55, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The point that none of the sources in the article provide any in-depth coverage is critical when evaluating the notability. WP:BCASTOUTCOMES is a rough guide, that says that "Licensed radio and TV stations are generally (emphasis mine) kept as notable if they broadcast over the air and originate at least a portion of their programming schedule in their own studios." This does not extend to local channels that broadcast to a small neighborhood. The extent of this channel is not clear from the article or this discussion and in any case, BCASTOUTCOMES is an information page, not a guideline or policy that can challenge the need for independent and significant sourcing.

DYBK

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

Not enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:34, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:34, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:37, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not appear to pass WP:GNG (WP:NORG?) based on the references provided, and any media-specific radio guidelines must still pass GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 16:16, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Since there's no community-endorsed SNG on the topic, the GNG applies; I can find no substantial coverage. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:05, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dude, just wait! or Keep: RfC on NMEDIA is ongoing, so just wait. You might be doing all this "work" for absolutely nothing. Just noticed, there are 6(!) refs in this article! More than meets GNG. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 10:47, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GNG isn't based on the number of sources in the article but rather by the quality of the sources, and none of the sources currently in the article look to meet the requirements set out by the GNG. One's a dead link, one's clearly a mere mention, and the rest are government lists. SportingFlyer T·C 12:57, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Sources 1 to 3 state that the station is licensed by the NTC. Sources 4 to 6 show that the station indicates some programming. That said, the article is good enough to pass WP:GNG. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- None of the sources contribute to any sort of significant coverage of the station. I'm also surprised you say source 6 indicates some programming, since source 6 is a dead link. Clearly fails WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 20:05, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - SportingFlyer, source 4 indicates the station's service contract. Sources 5 and 6 (the creator of the article must've had problems in accessing the link) prove that the station originates some programming. Therefore, these sources (including 1 to 3) easily comply with WP:BCASTOUTCOMES and are definitely good enough for the article to pass WP:GNG. I have explained more than enough. And I won't respond to this post again. My keep stands. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 05:00, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - None of those sources even approach being significant coverage. They're all textbook trivial mentions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:07, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - Love how now 8(!) references are "textbook trivial mentions". I bet an FA with 104 references still wouldn't meet your definition of SIGCOV. It meets GNG. Move along....you and your moving goal posts. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:28, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        My goalpost is the GNG, which does not move. It requires significant coverage, yesterday, today, and tomorrow. See WP:LOTSOFSOURCES. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:15, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:GNG per Astig's and Neutralhomer's argument. SBKSPP (talk) 01:05, 19 June 2021 (UTC)— Note to closing admin: SBKSPP (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:41, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources 1-5 do not actually discuss the subject, and source 6 is trivial coverage. Blatantly not notable. Mlb96 (talk) 03:33, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:SIGCOV: the few sources a WP:BEFORE brings up passing mentions only; there is insufficent coverage in third-party, independent reliable sources to warrant GNG-passing stand alone article. ——Serial 11:37, 25 June 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 keep. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:01, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sammi Cheung

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG, and no SNG apply. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:37, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:37, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Cunard (talk) 05:49, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. JJ (2020-11-01). "張秀文辛酸史：公屋妹打工賺錢養家、買樓不靠男人《木棘証人》演貪錢港女". Sunday More (in Chinese). zh:新傳媒集團. Archived from the original on 2021-06-06. Retrieved 2021-06-06.
2. 陳心怡 (2020-11-12). "【木棘証人】張秀文身材豐滿易惹誤解　Sammi揀男友最重視兩件事". Hong Kong Economic Times (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2021-06-06. Retrieved 2021-06-06.
3. "最新目標楊怡老公羅仲謙！那些年張秀文姣過的男孩們". Weekend Weekly (in Chinese). zh:新傳媒集團. 2020-01-08. Archived from the original on 2021-06-06. Retrieved 2021-06-06.
4. "香港「波神」張秀文曾落魄　戶頭只剩百元" (in Chinese). NOWnews. 2017-02-23. Archived from the original on 2021-06-06. Retrieved 2021-06-06.
5. Kwok, Ling (2020-10-30). "【木棘証人】張秀文演活貪錢港女現實勁孝順為母醫病不惜退學打工住劏房養家". U Lifestyle (in Chinese). Hong Kong Economic Times Holdings. Archived from the original on 2021-06-06. Retrieved 2021-06-06.
6. "搵Bob做媒人　張秀文「封胸」等姻緣". Oriental Daily (in Chinese). 2021-03-05. Archived from the original on 2021-06-06. Retrieved 2021-06-06.
7. 林祖傑 (2021-04-15). "蔣家旻張秀文新劇化身AV女優". Ming Pao (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2021-06-06. Retrieved 2021-06-06.
8. "32歲譚嘉儀自爆有圈中人追五官進化同62歲陳秀珠撞樣". Oriental Sunday (in Chinese). Oriental Press Group. 2021-06-04. Archived from the original on 2021-06-06. Retrieved 2021-06-06.
9. "同湯洛雯水戰！「胸」狠張秀文嫌唔夠性感" (in Chinese). Line Corporation. 2019-07-11. Archived from the original on 2021-06-06. Retrieved 2021-06-06.
10. "譚杏藍、張秀文、孫慧雪、王卓淇齊發聲！驚爆女神#MeToo事件簿". Weekend Weekly (in Chinese). zh:新傳媒集團. 2021-02-06. Archived from the original on 2021-06-06. Retrieved 2021-06-06.
11. 鄺鈺瑩 (2020-09-22). "張秀文主持賽馬節目　超低胸短裙一動一驚心播放" (in Chinese). HK01. Archived from the original on 2021-06-06. Retrieved 2021-06-06.
12. "《有樓萬事足》張秀文爆辛酸史銀行剩番$56.4". Oriental Sunday (in Chinese). Oriental Press Group. 2017-02-23. Archived from the original on 2021-06-06. Retrieved 2021-06-06.
13. "公屋港姐！陳庭欣勁低調　張秀文唔自卑". Oriental Daily (in Chinese). 2016-02-26. Archived from the original on 2021-06-06. Retrieved 2021-06-06.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Sammi Cheung to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 05:49, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:11, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:11, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Her Chinese Wikipedia page has a lot more coverage so there is probably enough for WP:GNG. (Although I can't verify as I could not translate) — BriefEdits (talk) 03:35, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:03, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I have expanded it. There are significant coverage on her from multiple independent sources. Sun8908 _Talk 17:26, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:40, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Easily satisfies WP:GNG (and WP:BASIC) as pointed out by Cunard. As for SNGs, WP:NACTOR (or WP:NMODEL, same thing) applies and Cheung satisfies two out of three disjunctive indicators of notability:
"1. Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions."
A comprehensive list of productions in which Cheung had participated is on her corresponding Chinese Wikipedia page. Recent examples of significant roles in notable television shows include her roles in Fraudstars (2021) (ZH WP article) and The Witness (2020) (ZH WP article); both shows would fulfill WP:NTV had they had English Wikipedia articles. She also came second in Miss Hong Kong 2010 and went on to represent Hong Kong in Miss International 2010.
"2. Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following."
I am rather unsure what 'large' means in this context, but Cheung's Instagram account has 132k followers and is verified.
I'd like to add that BriefEdits is completely right, there is much more information on her corresponding Chinese Wikipedia page. IndentFirstParagraph (talk) 13:48, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 14:19, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Beet yellow net virus

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

This virus seems to have very little notability because it has never been classified as a species by the ICTV and searching for it on PubMed, PMC, and GenBank returns zero results. Velayinosu (talk) 01:42, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. Velayinosu (talk) 01:42, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there is an archived link to ICTV in the external links section, where it is listed as a species. Surely this must be a synonym of something? Plantdrew (talk) 00:07, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

When I searched for whether this virus was a species, I used the search box on the ICTV's taxonomy page[16]. I've also checked a few of the master species lists and couldn't find anything. I spent about two hours just now trying to figure out if Beet yellow net virus was a synonym of another virus but just hit dead ends. It's possible that these two viruses (Beet yellow net virus and Millet red leaf virus) are synonyms of other viruses, but they may just be extremely unimportant. Velayinosu (talk) 03:21, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Google scholar yields 71 results. [17]. Many of them refer to "sugar beet yellow net virus". This is puzzling. Watching the page. Cinadon36 08:14, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'll be the first to admit I don't know a lot about virus databases but https://gd.eppo.int/taxon/BYNV00 and https://www.bionity.com/en/encyclopedia/List_of_beet_diseases.html and https://www.prevalentviruses.org/virus.cfm and http://www.virology.net/big_virology/bvviruslist.html have this as well as the google scholar hits mentioned above. If we find more about the naming or other details we can update accordingly but based on what we have found so far this seems to be widely described in the literature. Kingdon (talk) 03:49, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is "Sugar Beet yellow net virus" matching "Beet yellow net virus" though? If so, case is solved, we should keep the article. If not, there 's room for debate. Cinadon36 07:22, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Even if it is a synonym of "Sugar beet yellow net virus", that wouldn't mean it should be kept since "Sugar beet yellow net virus" likewise has never been recognized as a species by the ICTV and is not found via GenBank. Those two things along with the relative lack of information and research about the virus should probably preclude it from having an article. Velayinosu (talk) 02:31, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 02:59, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment not finding a virus via GenBank shouldn't be an issue. Plant virology was a valid field before widespread sequencing. The ICTVdB entry for this virus contains references between 1948 and 1988, but mostly in the first decade of that period, when no one was sequencing anything. We can't automatically write off the whole of pre-sequencing plant pathology as irrelevant. On the other hand, this may not be a terribly notable virus. I have no idea of WP's guidelines on notability of a virus! Your average beet virus doesn't get its mugshot in a good newspaper terribly often. Elemimele (talk) 12:33, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per this article [18]. We also have a related Rubus yellow net virus. My very best wishes (talk) 16:51, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rubus yellow net virus is significantly more notable though since searching for it returns 6 results on PubMed, 19 on PMC, 33 on GenBank, 241 on Google Scholar, and it is recognized as a species by the ICTV. Velayinosu (talk) 01:45, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, true, but having more publications about it [19], I think it could be kept. My very best wishes (talk) 19:43, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Beet necrotic yellow vein virus is a different virus. Having Beet yellow net virus in relatively recent (1995) reviews of viruses (not 1960s), like this ref [20] or in books like here (this is 2011) seem to be a proof this is valid virus/subject. Also see the list of Google scholar hits link provided by someone else above. My very best wishes (talk) 01:11, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I think these other users may have failed to recognize that many of the google scholar hits they describe are actually hits for "Beet necrotic yellow vein virus," which is very well described in the literature and has hundreds of citations. "Beet yellow net virus," however, has only 3 unique hits since 2000 on google scholar and web of science. There are a lot of translations and reprints of old papers. This virus appears to have been discovered in 1948 or so, studied a fair amount back then into the 60s, and then forgotten into the background. There's been maybe one valid reference in 1997 a plant pathology study in 2002, and finally a very low impact agriculture journal published this year in what I think might be Poland or Lithuania. But I cannot find much coverage outside of that. A compelling case for inclusion this does not make.--Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 17:37, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I feel a bit out of my depth here. Even if I were to read the literature more, I don't think I'd easily be able to say whether the virus studied in the 50s and 60s could be matched to a virus which is more well-understood using modern techniques (for example, has been sequenced) and can be found in recently published literature (or whether there is reason to think it is a readily identifiable virus which could be sequenced and otherwise researched if anyone took the effort to do so; or whether samples exist in freezers which might help clarify which virus is which). According to http://www.virology.net/big_virology/bvviruslist.html , https://www.prevalentviruses.org/virus.cfm , https://www.bionity.com/en/encyclopedia/List_of_beet_diseases.html , and https://gd.eppo.int/ Beet necrotic yellow vein virus is a Furovirus or Benyvirus but Beet yellow net virus is a Luteovirus. All four sites have both Beet necrotic yellow vein virus and Beet yellow net virus separately, but I'm less sure whether I'm drawing the right conclusions from noticing that. If it is a lightly studied virus but there is no particular reason to doubt that it is distinct, I guess I'd conclude keep but I don't want to sound overconfident based on some sources which I may or may not really understand. Kingdon (talk) 03:32, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:38, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

With respect to "I have no idea of WP's guidelines on notability of a virus", I don't see anything specific to viruses at WP:SNG so we're probably back to WP:GNG which on the face of it would appear to be satisfied by the journal articles from the 50s and 60s (in light of WP:NTEMP). (Those are all sections of WP:N which isn't especially long). I'm not sure those links fully answer the question of what to do with this article, but perhaps they answer what notability is? Kingdon (talk) 03:45, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Having been written about in a journal article by itself should not automatically make a virus notable enough for an article. There are too many viruses in existence for that to be reasonable or feasible, and it doesn't acknowledge differences in publication type. In this case, it ignores the broader context of this virus having significantly lower notability than what the Virus WikiProject generally considers to be low notability (like the previously mentioned Rubus yellow net virus). If it is unclear whether this virus meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines, then more clear guidelines on which viruses can have articles can be created. Velayinosu (talk) 02:37, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Including the nominator, the two editors supporting deletion did so based on a claim of there being no references, and the two editors voting to keep did so based on references that were added by gidonb. This results in a narrow no consensus. (non-admin closure) Jackattack1597 (talk) 15:49, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nova Civitas

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

This article about a Flemish think-tank has no sourcing, and I have been unable to find any significant coverage online or through old newspapers and journals. The article was created in 2006 with no sources, and it has not been updated to include any sources since then. Searching for coverage is a little harder given the language barriers and the name of the organization, but it does not appear this organization has any notability outside of the individual members. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 19:28, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 19:28, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 19:28, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 19:28, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:49, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support deletion.weblink isn't available, couldn't find any references, think tank doesn't even exist any more. Tec Tom (talk) 16:00, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It was closed in 2009 and re-established under another name. The new think thank continues to hand out their important award. gidonb (talk) 14:33, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I only started referencing, but there is no lack of sources. So keep per WP:NEXIST, WP:ORGDEPTH, and WP:NODEADLINE. Nomination seems to imply that there is a deadline. gidonb (talk) 14:29, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Gidonb, other than brief mentions, are there sources that discuss the organization itself rather than its members? There do appear to be notable individuals involved, but it does not appear to me that the organization itself is notable, including from the two sources you added to the article – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 17:37, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  wallyfromdilbert, hi there! What do you mean by coverage about members? Are we looking at the same article? gidonb (talk) 18:10, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Gidonb, neither of the articles you added to the article have any significant coverage of the organization. They are about individuals who were involved in the organization. One of the articles only contains a single mention of the organization [21], while the other only briefly mentions Nova Civitas in relation to several other organizations that were being used as part of a "climate skeptic network" by a group of "climate deniers in Flanders" [22]. What articles discuss the actual organization as notable? – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 18:17, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said before, there is no lack of sources on the think tanks and their operations, including already in the article. Its Prize is very notable and an important part of the operations of the think tanks and counts towards their notability. Next, I'm going to make a few changes in the general setup that will make the entire topic better understood! gidonb (talk) 02:09, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If the organization or its annual award were "very notable", there should be significant coverage of it in multiple sources, rather than a few short articles (only one to two paragraphs), none of which have author bylines either as they seem to all be based on press releases by the organization itself: [23] [24] [25] [26] [27]. The only other sources you have added are [28] [29] [30], which barely mention the organization and only in relation to the notable individuals who are related to it, such as Boudewijn Bouckaert. I appreciate you looking for sources, but can you find a single source with significant coverage of the actual organization? – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 04:43, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Libera, previously Nova Civitas, is a famous Belgian think tank. Operations include articles published, prizes awarded, officeholders. You keep trying but the latter is not the focus of the article or the references. There's much more online. Belga, BTW, is the main news agency in Belgium. Compare to Reuters or AP. Obviously it's NOT a PR bureau and their items are not press releases but VERY legitimate articles that go to multiple newspapers. Often when news agencies write articles, the newspaper will still edit these but do not need to write from scratch. So, typically, you will find either the name of the news agency or the journalist. gidonb (talk) 06:47, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- - Also, you recently added a large amount of information that is not supported by the source you cited [31]. Are there independent reliable sources for that information? – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 18:20, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Absolutely and thanks for asking! If you give your own diff another look, you will see that the ref was for the 2021 award line! gidonb (talk) 02:09, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:35, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sufficient secondary reliable sources, ongoing significant activity of the organization in Belgium to meet notability. --Chefallen (talk) 16:24, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Tenafly Public Schools#Adolf Hitler assignment controversy. Content can be merged from history if desired. Sandstein 06:30, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maugham Elementary School Adolf Hitler assignment controversy

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

I respectfully propose that this article be deleted for several reasons in line with Wikipedia's deletion policy. The main thrust of my position is that this article fails Wikipeda's policy on notability for events.

1. Despite this story breaking on May 31, 2021, this story has already failed to generate attention over a sufficiently significant period of time (as of the time of this writing on June 13, 2021). The coverage of this story is essentially a burst of news coverage which per Wikipedia policy: "Brief bursts of news coverage may not sufficiently demonstrate notability." As this chart of LexisNexis results on stories mentioning "hitler" and "tenafly" indicates, coverage of this story petered out within 5 days of the story breaking. This chart is a rough estimate of coverage - it includes many essentially mirrored stories that are largely copies of others while also excluding some genuine coverage from local newspapers. However, this latter category includes less than 10 articles over the entire period, and just 2 after the first week. The Star-Ledger, for example, a newspaper based in New Jersey, whose articles are not included in the LexisNexis data, published only 5 articles on the topic (mentioning "Tenafly" and "Hitler"), four of which were within 3 days of the story breaking on May 31. A single Star-Ledger editorial was later published on June 10. In addition, one of the articles ^[1] included in the chart for June 11 is merely a summary and link to an article from NorthJersey.com ^[2].

Number of articles found through LexisNexis mentioning "tenafly" and "hitler" by day
Day	Number of stories
May 31	1
June 1	27
June 2	28
June 3	15
June 4	18
June 5	10
June 6	1
June 7	2
June 8	1
June 9	0
June 10	0* [not including 1 Star Ledger editorial^[3]]
June 11	2

2. Geographic scope: This article concerns an "event" confined to a single elementary school in a single town. The directly effected people number no more than 5: the student, the teacher, the principal, and the student's parents. This hardly seems of sufficient geographical scope to merit notability. Even if we include the individuals who took offense to the "event", unless we include every reader of any coverage, this would still be confined to the 172nd largest town in New Jersey.

3. No obvious lasting effect: Confined as this story was to a single elementary school in a single town and given the consensus among the coverage that it was largely an innocent mistake by a child and an unfortunate decision by a teacher, it seems reasonable to assume that this story will have limited broad lasting effects. The most recent news coverage of the story ^[4] already suggests the community is moving past the "event" and finding closure. At a minimum, this article might be userfied and perhaps republished if any future developments occur which would raise its qualifications for notability. In this sense, the original article seems to have been a rush to create an article before its fifteen minutes of infamy were up. By contrast, the sharp decline in coverage since the initial burst suggests, I would argue, that I am not too early to propose deletion. As stated, userfying this article at a minimum, might be a reasonable compromise until any further developments.

4. Finally, this article seems to fall under the policy that Wikipedia is not a newspaper, even when 109 newspapers cover it. Overall, the "event" and coverage seems to be a case of a Hitler-inflected form of shock news, water-cooler talk, or quasi-viral story, all of which do not justify inclusion in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cattlematrix (talk • contribs) 18:39, 13 June 2021 (UTC) — Cattlematrix (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:56, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:56, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is certainly borderline... I’m not sure which way to call it but I don’t think terribly much would be lost in merging to Tenafly Public Schools, there appears to already be a substantial blurb which wouldn’t gave to get much longer to fit all the pertinent information. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:58, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This isn't a long-term sustained news event in any way. Nate • (chatter) 19:56, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The nominaton, made by a WP:SPA, simply does not reflect the facts regarding the page (or in my discussions with the account on the talk page) in an accurate way. As I noted on the article's talk page, the dated search results that they have provided are innacurate and appear to outright miss news pieces that were included in the article as citations, not just the editorial. Even when I told them about this on the article's talk page, the nominator did not accurately represent this in their deletion statement.

The Lexis-Nexis database results are missing relevant sources that are cited on this page, so I am unsure that this actually overstates the amount of original reporting on the story is true generally (though it appears to be the case on some days). Some of these missing sources would appear to include the two published on June 10, when the database says that zero publication were made: this source from The Record and this editorial from The Star-Ledger. Similarly, on March 31, the database shows 1 source, though three are cited on this page alone. There's certainly a spike in the coverage when the story first broke, but the fact that Italian regional papers papers aren't providing daily updates on the situation doesn't detract from its notability; as I've stated above, the fact that there's ongoing coverage from reliable sources provides further evidence of notability.
The notion that the effect of this event is limited to a single municipality is unnecessarily reductive and doesn't reflect the situation at all. The Jewish community, not just in Tenafly but also in the greater region, was affected by this. Even the Anti-Defamation League wound up getting thoroughly involved. The coverage isn't just "this happened" but also "this happened + there was a regional response". The coverage of the topic among Jewish media, particularly in and around NYC, has been rather significant.
The topic has been the subject of in-depth coverage from a diversity of sources. These include sources based in Israel, Italy, Taiwan, the United States, and Canada. Articles from the United States were likewise varied by region; The Washington Post provided in-depth coverage of the event (which was re-published in the UK's The Independent), The Miami Herald, and NBC News approached the story with their own investigations. There is ongoing and continuing coverage of this, as I've shown on the talk page. And keeping in mind that the New York metropolitan area has one of the highest concentrations of Jewish people in the world (outside of Israel), it's not surprising that quite a few U.S.-based Jewish news sources with a more international focus (such as Algemeiner) are physically based in the region.

— Mikehawk10 (talk) 21:22, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(original nominator, who is yes a WP:SPA but hope I'm acting in good faith here)

Point of clarification: The LexisNexis table was not intended to be a comprehensive listing of every source on the article, it was to show the **relative** volume of or change in coverage over time using one reasonable sampling of articles published (The LexisNexis database). That this database search missed some articles published in total is not the relevant factor, I argue, rather the change in volume is what I was trying to show to establish that this story qualifies as a "burst in news coverage" and thus not necessarily notable. Using the article's own current citations reveals a similar quick drop off in coverage. It might be claimed that this is a result of the editing on the page being completed, but if the editors were to go back and try to update it to account for more recent news, as the LexisNexis database suggests (even if it is just a sample and not fully comprehensive) they would be hard pressed to find much new to add even in just the last few days.


Day	Number of articles found through LexisNexis mentioning "tenafly" and "hitler" by day	Number of articles published on this day which are currently cited in the page
May 31	1	3
June 1	27	7
June 2	28	7
June 3	15	3
June 4	18	7
June 5	10	0
June 6	1	0
June 7	2	0
June 8	1	1
June 9	0	0
June 10	0* [not including 1 Star Ledger editorial^[5]]	2
June 11	2	0

2. In good faith, honestly not sure what/if there is standard for adjudicating notability of a story whose main content is reaction by groups with agendas (using that term as neutrally as possibly) such as the ADL, quotes elicited by reporters, and a few non-notable (in the technical sense) people on social media platforms. In addition, how are we defining "Jewish community" and how are we defining "affected by" for people not themselves directly implicated in the action such that this alone would merit inclusion in Wikipedia?

3. Re in depth coverage, see argument above about 109 newspapers guideline . From my own analysis of the diverse coverage by international sources, it seems to be largely mirrored coverage of the underlying event which per the diverse sources guidelines are usually discounted. Where the stories do differ it seems is getting different sets of reaction quotes, which again goes back to this story mostly being about some people got rightly or wrongly offended by a child's innocent mistake and a teacher's unfortunate decision.

--Cattlematrix (talk) 22:25, 13 June 2021 (UTC) — Cattlematrix (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I'll try to respond briefly. The so-called 109 newspapers guideline isn't a guideline, it's an essay that has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. And, even if it were a guideline, it's clear that it's talking about not using the same news wire published in many places and treating it as if it constitutes additional sources; multiple independent sources not relying on the same reporting isn't the thing the essay attempts to address. The notion that Jewish groups more broadly have some sort of agenda here isn't true, and there's certainly lots of coverage from multiple Jewish publications on this issue (these include The Jewish Standard, JewishLink, JewishLink op-ed from the Simon Wiesenthal Center, The Jewish Press, The Algemeiner (June 1, June 9) and there's a joint letter that involves the Israeli-American Council. It seems like quite a few regional and national Jewish/Israeli groups have been involved here, which further indicates notability. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:35, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes notability guidelines with various third party sources, especially notable currently due to the recent rise in anti-semitism. Tinton5 (talk) 07:32, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge / Redirect to Tenafly Public Schools - There does not appear to be justification for a standalone article. Most of what is here is already in the article for the district, but any additional material should be added to the article for Tenafly Public Schools and this article turned into a redirect. Alansohn (talk) 15:21, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge / Redirect to Tenafly Public Schools. This has attracted a lot of material above, but the reality is as given by Alansohn above. This should not be a stand-alone article. --Bduke (talk) 00:10, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and do not merge. This story is a lot more notable than the school where it had happened - per sourcing and otherwise. This is really an ominous event showing in which direction USA is moving. The analysis in tables above proves nothing on the lasting notability (one needs a much longer period of time). It is notable enough right now, and that is sufficient. My very best wishes (talk) 00:32, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And why it should be merged to Tenafly Public Schools? This subject is not known as Tenafly Public Schools controversy. That had happen in Maugham Elementary School, but we do not even have a page about it. My very best wishes (talk) 22:55, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Tenafly Public Schools, where topic can found and satisfactorily covered at this time. Djflem (talk) 16:18, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Not enough sustained coverage for a stand-alone article.Jackattack1597 (talk) 11:06, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:35, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as per above arguments. Not notable enough to have its own page. Paragon Deku (talk) 06:15, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Tenafly Public Schools. There is already a section there on the topic that is sufficient.--Bduke (talk) 08:15, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm concerned that the links to the categories and other information would get lost in a merger or redirect. Antisemitism is on the rise. Bearian (talk) 15:36, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:32, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Head of the former Chinese imperial clan

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

This article is little more than a compilation of various minor figures and events of Chinese history. It lacks a narrative or theme that might turn a collection of details into a coherent story or article. A search of GBooks does not return any examples of the phrase "Head of the former Chinese imperial clan." Emperors sometimes appointed a few members of the previous ruling clan to minor positions. Many of the examples are sourced to primary sources. Has any secondary source considered this matter worth looking into? From looking over the article's references, I don't get the sense that anyone has. 99to99 (talk) 15:27, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article was translated from Chinese Wikipedia. The Chinese title translates as, "Two crownings, three respects." The theme of the article is that the current emperor is showing his respect to a former ruling clan. This establishes the current dynasty as a legitimate successor of the previous dynasty. According to the opening paragraph, appointments from the Yuan onward were not considered crownings or respects. So later examples could be just people related to a former emperor who got minor appointments. 99to99 (talk) 04:59, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:53, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 June 6. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:05, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:43, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Split and Repurpose -- Much of the article concerns titles given by emperors to the families of ousted predecessors. That is potentially an article worth having, but not with the current title. The last section concerns pretneders to the Qing dynasty's imperial crown. This is an interesting topic, worth a short article. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:37, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Peterkingiron: The information on Chinese pretenders also appears at House of Aisin-Gioro. It was originally written for Line of succession to the former Chinese throne. Wikipedia once had nearly fifty "former throne" articles of this type. After a mass deletion, only two remain, both about the French monarchy. Infogalactic still has the old articles. 99to99 (talk) 11:46, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The ostensible subject of this article is a political institution of imperial china, and that's what the lead suggests. But I can't see it discussed as such in the sources, because all of the references are about individuals, or about something else. Therefore this looks like an originally-synthesized subject. Still it's possible that the institution is real, and that it has been discussed somewhere, but I am unable to ascertain that. — Alalch Emis (talk) 17:53, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:10, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, possibly rename e.g. Veneration of deposed royal families in China. The article has a well-defined topic that lines up with its counterparts on other Wikipedia language editions: It is about the tradition that, when a new dynasty deposed an old one, the new king would grant a fiefdom to the royal family of the old dynasty, sometimes going back two or three dynasties. The article name may need tweaking but the topic definition is clear and there are ample reliable sources cited in the article. Deryck C. 22:05, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Deryck Chan: I'm unable to identify any such sources. Could you help me with that? — Alalch Emis (talk) 20:09, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep agree per above. VocalIndia (talk) 16:15, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:34, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

? Sandstein Is there really any need to relist it ?, Consensus is pretty obvious here?, Cheers. VocalIndia (talk) 17:19, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- VocalIndia, not to me. Sandstein 17:55, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, for me this is cut-and-dry original research (synthesis) of a topic based on unique sourcing with only the most tenuous link to string them together with. Daniel (talk) 23:44, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dlete - WP:SYNTH article with significant overlap on existing articles. MrsSnoozyTurtle 10:50, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 14:18, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thomson TO16 (prototype)

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

I suggest that this and the related models are not appropriate for separate articles. DGG ( talk ) 09:18, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why ? The article exists on the French Wikipedia, and although sources are not the best, they do exist. I could understand if you suggested a merge with the TO16 article though...

What other articles you wish to delete ? Again, they all exist on the French Wiki, and the have good sources (including manuals). 4throck (talk) 13:39, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:46, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:46, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Thomson TO16 seems obvious. Hyperbolick (talk) 20:05, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I can agree to that and I'll merge it. 4throck (talk) 08:31, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I believe 4throck has created both Thomson TO16 (prototype) and Thomson TO16 in the last few days, and has now determined to place all information in Thomson TO16 making Thomson TO16 (prototype) a redirect. (Which puts this AfD in a bit of a weird state as Thomson TO16 (prototype) redirects to Thomson TO16 which does not have an AfD notice leaving people initially as a bit of a surprise. I personally see no advantage to a redirect Thomson TO16 (prototype). Although we ar out of procedure, and given the merge has happened, Id like to see the redirect Thomson TO16 (prototype) deleted (there's no attribution issues as 4throck was the author or the merged source) (Simplest by 4throck speedying {{Db-g7}} the thing) and closing this AfD. Djm-leighpark (talk) 12:12, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:19, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:32, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete: This is because the merge(content copy) of Thomson TO16 (prototype) to Thomson TO16 has already been done by the creator (and sole contributor) of Thomson TO16 (prototype) (In good faith but whilst under AfD but "technically" without specific pre-consensus). I don't really see the need for a redirect from a search point of view as anyone would likely look for Thomson TO16 so probably best to dump in. The is a possibly a marginal case for use of the redirect it it has cats appropriate to a 68k processor intel of an Intel (I think I'm right in saying that from memory and my memory has better things to remember) but it doesn't and I'd still by !voting delete if it did. But do a redirect if necessary but closer please do something! Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 07:45, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 07:07, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Demola the Violinist

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

Promo piece on a non-notable musician, fails WP:MUSICBIO. The sources look plentiful, but are non-RS consisting of interviews, passing mentions, etc. (and a search finds nothing other than social media and yet more promo blurb), therefore fails WP:GNG also. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:43, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:43, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:43, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:43, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:43, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete probably self promotion. SHB2000 (talk) 11:55, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — In as much as I respect their sincerity(the article creator) and applaud them for disclosing their paid status, the article remains non notable and would only serve as a means of promotion for the article's subject. Celestina007 (talk) 21:25, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. – Joe (talk) 17:01, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Lacey

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

Non-notable author. Only found maybe two “in memoriam” pieces and zero reviews of his work. Dronebogus (talk) 06:25, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Dronebogus (talk) 06:25, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Dronebogus (talk) 06:25, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:59, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:49, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:49, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It's taking some digging, but I found some coverage for one of his books. The coverage is sort of about the author as well to a degree as it discusses his faith and what he went through during the book process. I think we could justify a page for either the book or the author, but not really both. Since I don't think that this would lose much if it were merged into the author's article, my thought is that we should keep the author's article and delete the individual articles for his books. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:02, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That said, this page definitely needs cleanup. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:03, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Finding sources for this isn't really easy since there's a lot of junk hits out there, putting it mildly and nicely. He's best known for his street Bible, but there's some mild coverage of him as far as his death and his wife's book goes. It's not the heaviest coverage out there, but I also kind of get the impression that there's more out there, given the way some of the coverage is written. I think it's enough to justify a single article and rather than just have one on the book, I think it'd be best to have one on the author, since that way it can sort of cover his work as a whole. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:24, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the improvement to the article since nomination which now shows enough coverage in reliable sources for a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:55, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted per WP:G5. Sir Sputnik (talk) 12:31, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lavalulu Abydos Ocame

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

Bio of a minor with at best very minor supporting roles that do not pass NACTOR. No SIGCOV. Alternatively, this may also be a hoax given the lack of an IMDB page and no listing in the casts of Luca and Sponge on the run. Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 06:07, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 06:07, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 06:07, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, upon my quick search, it turns out that his "entry" on Fandom was deleted multiple times. Snapshots of that article on Google suggests that the Wikipedia and Wikia entries may have been created by a single person or a kid (the subject himself). —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 06:16, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Update, tagged G5 due to [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CalabazaFénix2 that Spiderone filed and that was confirmed.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 11:11, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:03, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Liberator (book)

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

Non-notable work. Dronebogus (talk) 05:47, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Dronebogus (talk) 05:47, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bible-related deletion discussions. Dronebogus (talk) 05:47, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Dronebogus (talk) 05:47, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I couldn't find coverage to show where this book is notable. This is kind of par for the course with religious books and honestly, most niche books in general. It's rare that religious books get coverage in the places typically considered reliable on here or coverage in general, as it tends to be more word of mouth and visibility on store shelves, neither of which are things that count on here. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:10, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As the article is now it is not notable. I couldn't find much of anything on this title, beyond what the publisher has.--Surv1v4l1st ^{▌Talk|Contribs▌} 19:09, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rob Lacey as no sign of independent notability, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:59, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Rob Lacey. ✗plicit 05:42, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Word on the Street (book)

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

Non-notable work. Dronebogus (talk) 05:43, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Dronebogus (talk) 05:43, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bible-related deletion discussions. Dronebogus (talk) 05:43, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Dronebogus (talk) 05:43, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This is taking a lot of digging, but offhand I'm leaning towards this being notable. There's not a lot of traditional coverage for this like there would be for say, a novel, but there were places writing about this. I think that this should either have its own article or be merged into the author's page, since I'm seeing some mild coverage for him as well. I think that we could justify a single page on him or the book, but probably not both. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:44, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into author's article. I think that this would be better served having an article for the author, as quite a bit of the coverage talks about his creative process and some of his personal information. Per what I wrote above, we could have an article on one or the other, but not really both and I think that a page on the author would likely serve readers better. I've merged info from this article into the main article in anticipation of this. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:01, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rob Lacey where the content has been selectively merged, no need for a seperate article now, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:57, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. This is clearly heading for deletion, and there's no point in prolonging the process. You may regard this as a combination of a WP:SNOW deletion and a CSD#G3 speedy deletion, as it is obviously a hoax. JBW (talk) 13:49, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Emmanuel Vasily

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

I believe this is a hoax. There is no reference to the subject in Schama’s work as indicated by the reference provided. I don’t have copies of the other two works cited but have been through all the other reference works I have on the French Revolution and find no mention of this person, I have also not been able to find anything about him online. Mccapra (talk) 05:22, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 05:22, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 05:22, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 05:22, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Likely a hoax - no results for him in either of the three books via Google Books. Nothing on fr.wiki either, and the purported surname (a Russian first name) is also pretty improbable for an 18th-century Parisian. ninety:one 11:28, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, perhaps speedily, and block the creator as obviously WP:NOTHERE. If "Vasily" really was a "key ally" of a major historical figure, references would be available. They aren't, and in any event the article just reads like a hoax. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:03, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per others; it should also be noted that the IP which contested the speedy is rather obviously Adavman themselves, as they have both shown interest not only in this article, but also Ivanhoe Grammar School: [32][33]. AngryHarpy‍^talk 08:33, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have now readded the speedy deletion tag and left a warning on Adavman's talk page. AngryHarpy‍^talk 08:47, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. – Joe (talk) 14:20, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistan Cave Research & Caving Federation

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

Does not pass GNG. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk, FAQ, contribs) 04:31, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk, FAQ, contribs) 04:31, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk, FAQ, contribs) 04:31, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:58, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. not enough coverage to pass general notability guidelines. Rondolinda (talk) 20:46, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. (non-admin closure) —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 12:41, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Viy Cortez

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

does not credibly indicate the importance or significance Chief Minister (Talk) 04:00, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Chief Minister (Talk) 04:00, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Vedbas: did you do a WP:BEFORE on this person? When I did a search I saw decent sourcing. Also, "does not credibly indicate the importance or significance" is a speedy deletion criteria and not an AfD criteria. All that matters here is notability and the presence of good sources. It's also not true: the current article says she has 4M Youtube subscribers, which is an indication of success/fame/significance etc. --- Possibly (talk) 04:16, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please see https://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Envato&lang=en&q=Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#A7Chief Minister (Talk) 04:20, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that is for speedy deletion. This is not a speedy deletion.--- Possibly (talk) 04:25, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly, see also https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=delete&page=Viy_Cortez
This article was previously deleted due to the same problem Chief Minister (Talk) 04:27, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are using the wrong process. AfD is a week-long process; what you should have used was speedy deletion. Even so, I think she is notable and Speedy would have failed. Please stop nominating articles for AfD. I will leave a message on your talk page about this. --- Possibly (talk) 04:31, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And the article, in almost the same form, was speedy deleted. It fails to make clear how she is significant or important. Given that Possibly indicates that it's fixable, I'll hold off on deleting it a second time. —C.Fred (talk) 15:04, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@C.Fred: I'm hoping someone who reads Filipino will come along and look at it. I'm not able to assess the Filipino language sources on my own, but items like Cosmo in English look moderately promising. She also has 5 million subscribers on Youtube, and more than 500 million views. That indicates popularity, and I would assume there is more coverage in foreign sources.--- Possibly (talk) 01:29, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A great majority (95%) WP:RS about Philippine topics are in English. If you can't find anything of value, that's pretty much you can find for that subject. Howard the Duck (talk) 13:53, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No effective sourcing. Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 13:04, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:22, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:22, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:22, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:22, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable and poorly sourced. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 03:29, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The person in question is not notable even if she has millions of subscribers. Also, the sources are not reliable enough. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 10:19, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think the sources pointed out by @Possibly: are reliable, such as Philippine Entertainment Portal and Malaya (newspaper) PhotographyEdits (talk) 15:51, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article needs some clean up. Other that that, the sources indicated by Possibly seem reliable. A PEP article indicated fully talks about her life and career. The rest of the sources talk about her activities. That said, the article is good enough to pass WP:BIO. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:BIO with sources presented by Possibly. They're reliable enough IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 01:02, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Needs more to establish notability - Nabla (talk) 14:13, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per hueman1. MrsSnoozyTurtle 10:43, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BD2412 T 04:21, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Joseph Couture

The result was delete. The actual discussion has been hidden from view but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 04:20, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fairview, Twin Falls County, Idaho

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

I've decided to make a pass over Idaho, which seems to be mostly in decent shape, but there are some dubious towns, such as this crossroads which happens to have farm buildings on three out of four corners, including one which has expanded over the years into a sizable dairy operation. Searching is complicated by the need to specify the county, but what I got beyond clickbait was accidental juxtapositions and references to a Fairview Precinct, which doesn't cut it for notability. It's not at all clear why this spot even has a name. Mangoe (talk) 03:23, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 03:32, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 03:32, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:38, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:20, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Jones (photographer)

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

Part of a group of articles created by Jones' agent, and in CAT:NN's backlog for 12 years. There is some evidence of his photos being used in successful publications, but not that he meets WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 12:59, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:09, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:09, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable Dexxtrall (talk) 13:16, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:36, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteThe article does not follow all the norms, not notable.Aloolkaparatha (talk) 06:41, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. – Joe (talk) 14:10, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tirotex

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

The notability of the company is not established anywhere in the article. Megaman en m (talk) 12:53, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Megaman en m (talk) 12:53, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No news coverage available to pass this company for WP:NCORP. DmitriRomanovJr (talk) 13:23, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~ Oppose when searching the Russian name of the company, Тиротекс, you get 2,090 results on the news section of Google alone. The company has received 3 state awards (Order of the Red Banner of Labour, Order of the Republic and Order of Honor) and the article can be improved a lot by translating the Russian one (which only by taking a look at it, even without translating it, seems like a good and proper article that wouldn't get deleted in an AfD). The notability of a subject is not determined by what's in its article. Super Ψ Dro 13:24, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See also this article [34]. I please ask to the user that will close this AfD to do a quick research about the company, I believe they will find information that, added to what I've shown and the Russian Wikipedia article, can lead them not to close it as delete. Super Ψ Dro 07:12, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to also have had an important role during the COVID-19 pandemic in Transnistria (after the state called it to do so [35]) [36] (this article calls Tirotex "the biggest exporter of Transnistria") [37] [38] (article from the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Transnistria). Super Ψ Dro 07:15, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Moldova-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:48, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:18, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:36, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep appears to be one of the notable enterprises in Transnistria, as indicated in the links provided by Super Dromaeosaurus.Anonimu (talk) 17:43, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 23:44, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Team Vanish

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

Fails WP:GNG. Forbes reference is from a "contributor", Esports Insider is a very niche site, and DTS in not independent of the subject. A draft of this page exists at Draft:Team Vanish. — Pbrks (talk) 13:37, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. — Pbrks (talk) 13:37, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Pbrks (talk) 13:37, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable, sources limited to press releases and primary sources Dexxtrall (talk) 23:53, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:35, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 04:26, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamed Rifkhan

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

Nothing in article to suggest subject is notable. Article claims Rifkhan's company is the largest mobile and accessories store in Sri Lanka but the given source doesn't mention this - in fact its states that the company only had four stores (in 2018). Most of the secondary sources provided in the article are run of the mill business articles, not the multiple, significant coverage required by WP:BASIC.

The Young Businessmen of the Year award does not qualify as as well-known and significant award under WP:ANYBIO.

The article claims that Rifkhan has been given Sri Lanka's third highest national honour, Deshabandu, but the only source provided to back up this is Rifkhan's own LinkedIn profile which isn't a WP:RS. The Deshabandu article lists Rifkhan as a recipient but does not provide any sources (Rifkhan was added to Deshabandu by Gihan Jayaweera, the creator of the Rifkhan article). There was no national honours awarded in 2018 so if Rifkhan had received the Deshabandu award it would have been in 2017 or 2019 but none of the sources provided in the 2017 Sri Lankan national honours or 2019 Sri Lankan national honours mentions Rifkhan. The official gazettes for the 2017 and 2019 national honours don't mention Rifkhan. Therefore Rifkhan's claim to have received the Deshabandu honour is most likely false.

The article claims Rifkhan received the Dr AJP Abdul kalam Memorial Excellence Award (not to be confused with the Dr. A. P. J. Abdul Kalam Award) but the only source is Rifkhan's Facebook page, not a reliable source. Obi2canibe (talk) 15:09, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Obi2canibe (talk) 15:09, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:59, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:27, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Info Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing.

Logs: 2021-06 ✍️ create

--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:30, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, is highly promotional and lacks substance - agree that it fails WP:ANYBIO as there is nothing that clearly establishes the individual’s notability. Dan arndt (talk) 11:07, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. – Joe (talk) 14:02, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rádio Plus (Slovakia)

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

(added) Seems sourced only to one primary source, no evidence of notabilty.Slatersteven (talk) 14:37, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:50, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:50, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Slatersteven: You need to make some sort of nominating statement with your rationale.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:38, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Bloody thing did not save it.Slatersteven (talk) 15:44, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And also may not even be operating now.Slatersteven (talk) 15:07, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Added one recent news source about the station losing its license because they didn't file to renew in time. There are a few other Slovak-language stories that crop up in a search (including two about disputes over Slovak-language music content requirements, if I'm following them correctly), but not much in detail about the station. Carter (talk) 15:09, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:28, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Info Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing.

Logs: 2021-06 ✍️ create

--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:30, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. – Joe (talk) 14:01, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Desloges

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

WP:BLP1E of a person whose only substantive claim of notability is a temporary blip of newsiness in 2020 when he served for a couple of weeks as a sign-language interpreter at COVID-related provincial government press conferences -- but apart from one alumni profile on the self-published website of his own alma mater, which is not a notability-supporting source, he has no substantive coverage at all outside of a one-week blip in late March and early April of 2020.
This is not in and of itself a reason why a person would earn a permanent place in an encyclopedia, as it fails the will people still be looking for this article ten years from now test, but there's no other evidence that he has a stronger notability claim. Bearcat (talk) 16:03, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:03, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:03, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:03, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:29, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 04:22, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Flag of Katsina State

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

First off, the weaker claim: I don't think this article is notable, as none of the sources are reliable and I'm unable to find any reliable sources about the flag.

The stronger claim: I don't think the depicted flag is accurate. I can't find reliable sources definitively pointing either way, but I've gathered a fair amount of circumstantial evidence against that proposition.

First off, there is a clear way to explain how this incorrect flag could have circulated. https://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/ng-sub.html cites a vexillology journal that I can't find (though if anyone has access to these libraries, I'd be curious to see what it says) to claim that a flag matching this description was the flag of the Katsina Emirate, a distinct entity. This article was published in 1984 while the state was created in 1987, so it couldn't possibly be talking about the modern state. However, the confusion may have led someone to create the image shown in the article, which then circulated across the internet.
Next, there's some additional questioning of this flag's accuracy in unreliable sources; see [39] [40] for questioning of this; [41] has a different flag entirely (but also doesn't have any sources or even a real explanation)
Lastly, I can't seem to find any photos of this flag flying anywhere, even in places where you might expect it. This photo of the governor's house doesn't have it, this photo of the state legislature doesn't have it, this photo of an official ceremony doesn't have it, this interview with the governor has the Nigerian and All Progressives Congress flags in the background, but not Katsina's, and neither the official website nor the official portraits seem to include the flag.

I asked WikiProject Nigeria here, pinging the article creator, but no one responded. Vahurzpu (talk) 03:25, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Vahurzpu (talk) 03:25, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Vahurzpu (talk) 03:25, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nom makes a strong argument that this is neither verified not notable. Reywas92^Talk 17:04, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete though this would be a notable topic if we could just verify the flag (well, and write a couple reliable sentences on it.) SportingFlyer T·C 15:32, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:20, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Hysen

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

Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Not a notable position by any means and clearly copy-and-pasted from somewhere else. KidAd • SPEAK 03:16, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:47, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:19, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:37, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Chief information officer of a government department is not an "inherently" notable role for the purposes of guaranteeing a Wikipedia article, and the references are not notability-supporting reliable sources for the purposes of getting him over WP:GNG instead. Bearcat (talk) 15:07, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not everyone who has "chief" in their name is notable. The sourcing is just not enough to show notability, nor is there enough coverage otherwise.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:47, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:20, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sedition Caucus

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

This is an attack page. Although it may not fall under the strict criteria of the WP:CSD#G10 reason, it is a page that attacks its subject(s). There is no organization known as the "Sedition Caucus". The people listed as members of this "caucus" are not actually organized as a caucus or anything similar.

From the article itself:

"the Sedition Caucus, also the ... is a pejorative term for ... members of ... Congress"

"The term, referring to a Congressional caucus, does not refer to an actual organized group"

TOA The owner of all ☑️ 02:26, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. TOA The owner of all ☑️ 02:26, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. TOA The owner of all ☑️ 02:26, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. TOA The owner of all ☑️ 02:26, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. TOA The owner of all ☑️ 02:26, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Poor WP:ATTACKPAGE and WP:POVFORK. KidAd • SPEAK 03:17, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is not self-evidently either of those things. !Votes without reasoning beyond links generally don't affect the outcome of a discussion. VQuakr (talk) 19:52, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as creator per WP:NEO ("it may be possible to pull together many facts about a particular term and show evidence of its usage on the Internet or in larger society") and WP:WORDISSUBJECT ("a word or phrase is often used as a "lens" or concept through which another topic or closely related set of topics are grouped or seen"). The article itself is on the term "Sedition Caucus", which has become widely used in the political world. The article also discusses the actions of the group of lawmakers dubbed the "Sedition Caucus", providing the necessary background for the term and spinning off tangential yet related content from the now-bloated article 2021 United States Capitol attack. Yes, the term itself is non-neutral, but it is unmistakably the WP:COMMONNAME (this is entirely acceptable, see WP:NPOVTITLE). Similar pages include axis of evil, Bernie Bro, death panel, outposts of tyranny, and many other articles included in Category:American political neologisms. Nowhere in the article does it assert that the Sedition Caucus is a legitimate group; it in fact says the literal opposite, as the deletion nominator helpfully pointed out above. This does not make it an attack page; rather, the page plainly documents a term and its historical context – that context being the Capitol attack and several Republican lawmakers voting against certifying Biden's victory. If a person finds that behavior objectionable, well, to tell you the truth, I can't blame you, but those are simply the plain facts of the situation. To pretend otherwise would be irresponsible. The riot and the vote happened, the term came to be, and as an encyclopedia we should have a page on it. The attack was an event which very quickly gained notability, and IMO the term "Sedition Caucus" passes WP:10YT. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 03:35, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not an attack page, as you have already been told. It neither exists primarily to disparage or threaten its subject and it is not unsourced or poorly sourced. Objections to the title of the article belong at WP:RM, not here. Objections to two specific sentences belong at the talk page, not here. The reasoning given here would suggest that Axis of evil, Trump derangement syndrome, Bernie Bro, and Karen (pejorative) would also need to be deleted. Sometimes, neutral factual documentation doesn't look very flattering, but that doesn't mean we should delete 2017 Cleveland Browns season, and it doesn't mean we should delete this. Egsan Bacon (talk) 03:40, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It definitely exists "primarily to disparage its subject". The subject of Congress members that voted against certification is already sufficiently covered at 2021 United States Electoral College vote count. To have this article in addition to that one, is an attempt to disparage to a further extent than the factual information already covered in the neutral-titled article. 03:46, 22 June 2021 (UTC) TOA The owner of all ☑️

Keep. It's a wiki-notable bloc of American politicians. Is it an unflattering name? Clearly, but there's plenty of pages on political factions whose names are less than flattering. The Copperheads were named for a venomous snake. There are Wikipedia articles on any number of pejoratives, including outright slurs, which have become notable by their usage and impact. "Sedition Caucus" has been used often enough to meet notability as I understand it. If there's problems with the POV, consider editing the page; there might be something to be said for criticism of the term, the members of the "Caucus" reacting to their label, and so forth (although also avoid undue weight). The page itself should remain. RexSueciae (talk) 16:01, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As argued above, we do indeed have articles on pejorative terms, when we can write about them. (In addition to the examples already listed, Tankie comes to mind.) The sourcing is adequate to establish wiki-notability; I wouldn't rule out a careful merge to one of the other articles in our voluminous coverage of the January 6th coup attempt, but reading over the pertinent material, having these details in a separate page seems more convenient. XOR'easter (talk) 16:20, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The subject of the article is a thing that has a really non-neutral but probably common name (the proper WP:COMMONNAME doesn't have to be neutral). The subject is not a word per WP:WORDISSUBJECT (it is very dissimilar from something like Gay agenda), despite the article being styled that way (I find that kind of treatment of the subject to be okay regardless). This thing being the political phenomenon of there being this cluster of lawmakers taking an extreme and intransigent position, that breaks from political traditions. The phenomenon is notable and I see it being discussed as such, when it's trajectory is tracked even months later. Clearly the media who are continuously writing about this cluster are not talking about a word, but about something going on in the political realm, a thing, even when they write "so-called 'Sedition Caucus'". — Alalch Emis (talk) 16:30, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:GNG. Also per the guideline WP:SUMMARYSTYLE, which allows smaller articles to be spun out of big articles. 2021 storming of the US Capitol is 450kb, so there is not really enough room to move all of this content to that article. And this content should be covered somewhere. A key feature of a WP:G10 or a WP:ATTACKPAGE is that it is negative in tone and unsourced. The sourcing on this article is excellent. BLP and ATTACKPAGE policies are not in place to censor negative material on living persons that is well sourced. If books and newspapers speak negatively of public figures, that is encyclopedic and does not run afoul of our policies. –Novem Linguae (talk) 16:49, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - easily passes WP:GNG. Just because a page is mostly or entirely negative, or uses a derogatory term as it's title, doesn't mean it's an WP:ATTACKPAGE. /Tpdwkouaa (talk) 20:14, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Clean it up thoroughly to make it compatible with WP:NPOV. The page doesn't have to be an attack page, but it currently is one to some extent. It's OK to have articles about notable derogatory terms like Sedition Caucus, Social justice warrior, Tankie, TERF etc., but of course we must not use these terms in WP:WIKIVOICE. The current Sedition Caucus article has two major problems:
1. Its text uses the derogatory term Sedition Caucus several times to refer to a group of people.
2. Some other articles contain piped links to Sedition Caucus hidden under innocuous terms, e.g. "group of legislators" in 2021 United States Electoral College vote count, "lawmakers who had objected to certifying Electoral College results" in Aftermath of the 2021 United States Capitol attack. The section "Related groups and persons" of Template:2021 United States Capitol attack contains a link to Sedition Caucus.
To fix these issues, we'll have to 1. Make sure that we have two pages that can serve as link targets: one about the group of people, the other about the disparaging term. 2. Clean up the page about the disparaging term and make sure that it doesn't use the term in Wikivoice. — Chrisahn (talk) 22:56, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems an adequately sourced WP:NEO. May be worthwhile to revisit if an article makes sense at this location after some time has passed or if it would be better covered elsewhere, but the BLP/ATTACK concerns appear quite overblown. VQuakr (talk) 19:52, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, article accurately identifies this as a perjorative term, I do not see any BLP problems at all. Devonian Wombat (talk) 11:58, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, sources seem in order and while i can understand some may misinterpret this article as an "attack", the article begins with identifying the term as perjorative. While I assume good faith I also believe this may just be a case of WP:JDL. Oh, BTW google search today returned about 579,000 hits, either way this article will have to be monitored since it will most likely be prone to vandalism ETC... DN (talk) 23:03, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as the nominator seems to have a political bias evidenced by the articles that they are choosing to nominate for deletion. - Hard thoughtful work (talk) 23:30, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. – Joe (talk) 13:58, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Francisco Avitia

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

Only source in the article is a genealogy website. Fails WP:SIGCOV. 4meter4 (talk) 01:02, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Present sourcing or state of an article has no bearing on notability. The Spanish-language Wikipedia aricle includes citations to profiles/remembrances in La Prensa ([42]} and El Universal ([43]), as well as biographies of less clear reliability. A short blurb in Cashbox calls him one of the top Mexican singers. Gustavo Arellano credits him with popularizing the ranchero song "El Muchcho Alegre" (a song he tongue-in-cheek writes "should be the Mexican national anthem because it has everything a Mexican needs for fun" ). He was the subject of an hour-long radio program in 1995, he released several albums, and from the tone of coverage in reliable sources, he was well known, at least regionally if not all of Latin America. WP:GNG is met, and additional significant coverage probably exists, but it may not be easily accessible online. It is likely that someone knowledgeable with Mexican popular music and/or with access to quality Spanish-language sources can find more in-depth coverage in relevant music sources. --Animalparty! (talk) 02:21, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 02:23, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 02:23, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources found by Animalparty. Additional Spanish-language coverage likely exists. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 03:28, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Joe (talk) 13:57, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Simone Nobili

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

I really don't see how this person pass WP:NMODEL or even WP:GNG. I don't see any in-depth coverage or any WP:RS in this article. SirEdimon ^Dimmi!!! 00:40, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SirEdimon ^Dimmi!!! 00:40, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. SirEdimon ^Dimmi!!! 00:40, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:46, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, there is no coverage outside of directory listings, though I did find a couple of interviews given by a different Simone Nobili. Devonian Wombat (talk) 11:57, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Joe (talk) 13:53, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dénola Grey

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

A promotional article based on promotional interviews, which are unreliable sources wherever published. There's one award., for "Most promising///" I think that's equivalent to not yet notable DGG ( talk ) 00:10, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. DGG ( talk ) 00:10, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:45, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Per DGG, Promotionalism and nothing more. I can’t see any notability threshold by our criteria standards met. Celestina007 (talk) 21:16, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] ttps://www.politico.com/newsletters/new-jersey-playbook/2021/06/02/mr-murphy-goes-to-camden-493077

[2] ttps://www.northjersey.com/restricted/?return=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.northjersey.com%2Fstory%2Fnews%2Fbergen%2Ftenafly%2F2021%2F06%2F01%2Ftenafly-nj-hitler-report-investigation%2F7496309002%2F

[3] ttps://www.nj.com/opinion/2021/06/a-teachable-moment-in-tenafly-just-not-the-one-youd-expect-editorial.html

[4] ttps://www.northjersey.com/story/news/2021/06/11/childs-hitler-school-report-raised-uproar-nj-town-but-community-forgives/7593872002/

[5] ttps://www.nj.com/opinion/2021/06/a-teachable-moment-in-tenafly-just-not-the-one-youd-expect-editorial.html

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]