Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 June 23

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< June 22	June 24 >

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 redirect to Sarah Harding#Discography. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 00:30, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wear it Like a Crown

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

Fails WP:NSONG, the only coverage I could find was a single article in the Belfast Telegraph, not enough to establish notability. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:58, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Hardly enough to have an entry in Sarah Harding's discography, let alone a stand alone article. --Richhoncho (talk) 23:45, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:03, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sarah Harding#Discography. There is some press release coverage of the announcement of the song's release [1], [2], but not enough to warrant an article. Sadly this is likely to be the artist's final release in her lifetime, so it's quite possible that people will search for it, and it can be kept as a search term. Richard3120 (talk) 16:23, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sarah Harding#Discography. I do not see evidence of significant coverage, but I agree with Richard3120 that there is limited coverage and this is a viable search term. Aoba47 (talk) 16:42, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to discography page per comments made by Richard3120. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 12:59, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) — Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 12:51, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mary E. Baker

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

While this seems like a very nice and accomplished lady with some valuable contributions to the small city of Brockton, Massachusetts, the coverage is entirely local and does not rise to the level of significance to meet WP:SIGCOV per WP:NOTNEWS. Further, it doesn't appear she achieved anything that would meet WP:ANYBIO either. Merely being the first African-American to work at a city hall in a small city of less than 100,000 people (and in the minor job of a legal secretary) doesn't seem very notable to me. 4meter4 (talk) 21:48, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:39, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:40, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:BASIC and WP:SIGCOV - my search for sources is complicated by hits for the school named after her, e.g. "Denise Baker-Bradley can’t wait for the day when naming a building after an African-American woman is not a news event," (The Enterprise, 2008) but there is also biographical information available from the same news outlet with the lede: "Your professors probably didn't teach you how influential these African Americans with ties to Brockton were. Here is a list of five people that contributed to historical change," (Enterprise, 2021) and more biographical information in "Six notable African-Americans with ties to the Brockton area," (Enterprise, 2010). Due to the sustained reporting and encyclopedic context available, this article does not seem excludable per WP:NOTNEWS. Beccaynr (talk) 14:37, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Beccaynr (talk) 14:50, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Beccaynr, this is all local coverage, even if it is sustained, which is exactly what WP:NOTNEWS policy addresses as not supporting notability. The subject needs to be a topic in a state wide or national news source, or even better an academic source which places her significance beyond a specifically local context. You haven’t demonstrated that with these sources to demonstrate coverage beyond what is dismissed routinely as non-notable per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:LOCAL. The issue here is one of independent coverage, generally subjects only covered by a local paper are not considered to be independent enough on their own to establish notability. 4meter4 (talk) 15:00, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think WP:SIGCOV footnote 2 helps support notability, because it includes, In the absence of multiple sources, it must be possible to verify that the source reflects a neutral point of view, is credible and provides sufficient detail for a comprehensive article, and the news sources provide WP:SECONDARY commentary on Baker as "notable" and "influential," offer biographical detail, and report on the honor of the school naming. The WP:LOCAL essay states Evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability but does not seem to suggest this is required (it appears WP:ORG/WP:AUD is stricter) - from my view, it is the nature of what is being reported that tips my !vote towards keep - this is more than someone having jobs and WP:OR attempting to extrapolate the significance, because in addition to the school named after her, there is WP:SECONDARY sourcing of her significance with sufficient biographical information to support an article. Beccaynr (talk) 15:50, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She checks off all the boxes, including a school named after her. Bearian (talk) 15:40, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as per the comments made by Beccaynr. Suonii180 (talk) 10:07, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 12:52, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mangen

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

Article unimproved and unexpanded by several years. It does not have aditional citations for verification. Rodney Araujo Tell me - My contributions 20:31, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:39, 23 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 23. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:57, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nom presents a WP:NOEFFORT reason for deletion, not a policy-based reason. Per WP:GEOLAND, named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist. This includes mountains, lakes, streams, islands, etc. Sam Sailor 21:45, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The deletion rationale isn't great. The lake itself is borderline notable due to WP:GEOLAND's gazetteer element and probably just needs another source to put it clearly over the line, right now its notability is on a knife-edge. I can't find any quickly, but sources are likely to be in Norwegian (there's a house at Nordre Mangen at the north end of the lake which may yield some clues, Mangen on its own brings up lots of surnames.) SportingFlyer T·C 23:01, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please delete this page, because it does not meet the WP:Notability in Wikipedia. Rodney Araujo Tell me - My contributions 14:15, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Rodney Araujo, you should strike out your second !vote; the nomination counts as delete, and your comment above counts as an !vote, therefore you have "voted" twice for deletion. Netherzone (talk) 19:29, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the lake is represented in the Great Norwegian Encyclopedia. I added that reference, and more info may be added from it. Geschichte (talk) 14:42, 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. @DannyS712. Geschichte (talk) 19:11, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anurag Halder

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

Other than some passing mention or promotional news, there is no significant coverage from reliable sources. No significant coverage in Bengali either. No claim to or evidence of notability. Fails WP:GNG, WP:SINGER. Also, File:Anurag-Halder.jpg was uploaded as own work by article creator, there might be COI as well. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 19:39, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:41, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:41, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since fails WP:GNG, and appears promotional also. Pinakpani (talk) 12:36, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The content appears to be promotional, and does not comply with the norms also.Aloolkaparatha (talk) 03:19, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - paid-for 'news desk' articles do not confer notability Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:45, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not appear to meet WP:GNG --DannyS712 (talk) 01:45, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Request for the closing admin: can you please ping me if the result is delete? I came here from the wikidata requests for deletions page, where the associated item was nominated for deletion - the item (d:Q107329168) can't be deleted until the article is deleted. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 01:45, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 19:09, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Rogers (actor)

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

It appears the article is already in Draftspace thus move-warring is is waste of time. Although unsourced, a before search doesn’t show either WP:NACTOR nor WP:ENT met. Celestina007 (talk) 19:36, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:36, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:36, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: One line article with no reliable source attesting the person notability. Don't pass neither WP:NACTOR nor WP:GNG. SirEdimon ^Dimmi!!! 23:35, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The one source, IMDb, is not considered a reliable source and fails both WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. Aspects (talk) 16:32, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable actor, A7 also applicable. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 19:26, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - This draft can be expanded with the information in Draft:Matt Rogers (actor), which would improve this article, but is probably not enough to pass the Heymann test. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:35, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per WP:TOOSOON. I've heard his voice on the ads for his new show. I'm not sure that is enough yet. His character sounds funny. Bearian (talk) 15:42, 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) 19:08, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed Abdirahman Omar

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

Was BLP PROD but I contested this as the creator did add one reliable source that mentions him, albeit in passing only. The Somali league is not fully pro as per WP:FPL so there is no assertion of WP:NFOOTBALL here. In terms of WP:GNG, two of the references don't seem to even mention him and the 2nd one (linked above) is trivial coverage. I have searched the native form of his name Axmed Cabdiraxmaan Cumar and Axmed Gidaamow and found GJ1 and GJ2, which are also trivial mentions. No in-depth coverage located so WP:GNG doesn't appear to be met. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:32, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:32, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:33, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:33, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:34, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 19:39, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 04:26, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG, and a clear WP:BEFORE has been conducted. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:48, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This looks strangely self-written, very WP:PROMO. I would go as far to say this should be deleted under WP:G11. Govvy (talk) 12:14, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly, the article's many, many images are all tagged as 'own work'. I suspect there is undisclosed WP:COI here. Possibly even WP:AUTOBIO. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:49, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spiderone, All the images uploaded by this user are suspicious. I nominated some of them for speedy deletion. SirEdimon ^Dimmi!!! 22:33, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It seems a case of WP:PROMO and after all the article don't pass WP:NFOOTBALL, WP:GNG or any other notability criteria. SirEdimon ^Dimmi!!! 22:35, 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 delete. Geschichte (talk) 19:07, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kostka Bojana

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

COI G11 worthy article on a non notable “business person” who lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them thus fails to satisfy our criteria for inclusion. Furthermore there are no significant awards won to satisfy WP:ANYBIO either. Celestina007 (talk) 19:28, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:28, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:28, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:35, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:35, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A chancer. Non-notable. scope_creep^Talk 08:35, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable at this time WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:18, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:SPAM. Bearian (talk) 15:43, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I tried to look for better sources, but I wasn't able to add anything. RTV Kragujevac [3] is reliable and decent in coverage, but everything else is in passing mention or tabloids or magazines with questionable reliability. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 17:20, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Geschichte (talk) 19:05, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Fuller

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

I tried to find sources on him, but all I turned up was sources on an art curator, and maybe on an artist. His father was notable, but I do not see enough to show him passing general notability guidelines nor notability guidelines for an academic. John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:12, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:16, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:16, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – plenty of results via searches, including on Google Books and Google Scholar. Huge biography written on him here. Appears to be pretty notable as a theologian. I've added 3 additional sources to support some more info in the body. Agree that the article needs more though, but they are out there. Depends what and how you search. --Jkaharper (talk) 19:37, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:30, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The sources added by Jkaharper are quite valuable; here's another one. He has also written numerous books, and those books have been widely cited and reviewed. At the end of the day, he seems to have "had a significant impact in [his] scholarly discipline, broadly construed", meaning he meets WP:NACADEMIC crit. #1, and one could argue that he also meets the GNG and/or WP:NAUTHOR #1. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:06, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:06, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - easily passes WP:NACADEMIC #1. I have added more sources to the article. St Anselm (talk) 23:29, 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. Geschichte (talk) 19:04, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Esra Pehlivanli

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

Unref blp, in CAT:NN for 12 years and written in a promotional manner. No evidence of meeting WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG/ Boleyn (talk) 19:00, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:12, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:36, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was unable to source the awards in November and that remains the case now. A new BEFORE turns up no subsequent coverage. Star Mississippi 20:25, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. scope_creep^Talk 08:36, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable at this time and multiple issues within the article WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:17, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable. Myxomatosis57 (talk) 21:46, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only found a few articles where she is only mentioned: [4], [5]. Nothing else, doesn't pass GNG. ~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 18:46, 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 redirect to List of schools in Bogotá. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:33, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oakland Colegio Campestre

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

A BEFORE indicates no evidence of notability in English or Spanish for this private school. Star Mississippi 18:18, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 18:18, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 18:18, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 18:18, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Private schools have to pass WP:NORG. Which this one clearly doesn't. Since there isn't even the WP:MILL trivial coverage out there that usually exists for a lot of schools. Let alone anything that would pass the notability standards put forth in WP:NORG. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:14, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of schools in Bogotá. The article needn't meet WP:NORG: as WP:NSCHOOL makes clear, meeting the GNG is just fine. In this case, however, that's a distinction without a difference since there are zero reliable sources at all. My searches aren't finding anything either, so I'll conclude it isn't notable. But redirecting the page to the list of schools in Bogotá, where it's already mentioned, seems to be a reasonable alternative to deletion, if only per WP:CHEAP. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:56, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Really what it is says that they need to pass GNG, NORG, or both. I'm sick of being called out by people who rather leave out the last two options like they aren't in there just because I acknowlege that they are. Especially in cases like this where it doesn't even matter. So maybe give it a rest next time. If you think the guideline is off repeatedly bringing it up here isn't going to do squad and I'm still going to cite it no matter how many times I'm called out for it. That aside, I'm fine with a redirct as an ATD. Adamant1 (talk) 00:06, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as an alternative to deletion. Subject lacks significant coverage to meet WP:NORG. MrsSnoozyTurtle 10:48, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:46, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Radhika Nagrath

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

Doesn't qualify WP:Creative. Writing and publishing books is not sufficient to meet WP:Creative. Getting it launched with political figures also doesn't contribute. There are two tribune articles but there is very little independent commentary on her work. It's mostly replicating what she said without a lot of thought. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 17:41, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 17:41, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 17:41, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:57, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:57, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable at this time WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:16, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet WP:BASIC, only has a couple passing mentions in reliable independent sources. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 22:55, 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 Sidhu Moose Wala discography. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 00:30, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

US (Sidhu Moose Wala song)

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

Fails WP:NSONGS as "US" has not been "the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label." Appears to have received lots of view on social media platforms with a ranking only on the Triller chart in Billboard, which is not one of its significant charts. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 17:22, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 17:22, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 17:22, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NSINGLE. Difficult search term, but I at least can't find anything even approaching RS sigcov, hence fails WP:GNG as well. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:00, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- PS: I don't know if the title is a meaningful search term, but possibly could redir to Sidhu Moose Wala discography?--DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:03, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sidhu Moose Wala discography. Fails WP:NSONG per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 00:51, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the discography page. Not very confident about this but it doesn't appear to have received WP:SIGCOV in any reliable source. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 23:07, 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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:56, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Scottsburg Senior High School

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

Non notable school with no Reliable, Independent Sources. 1друг (talk) 17:30, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. 1друг (talk) 17:30, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. 1друг (talk) 17:30, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:47, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:47, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I didn't found sufficient coverage that makes the school notable Rondolinda (talk) 19:35, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reliable sources. Not notable school. Trap133 (talk) 04:51, 16 June 2021 (UTC) strike per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Oficialtowhid. —Nnadigoodluck███ 12:13, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There only sources in the article are a dead primary link and an extremely trivial name drop. There's nothing else out there from what I can tell except more of the same either. Just some WP:MILL news story about a student from the school getting a scholarship. So, clearly this isn't a notable school. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:49, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty of sourcing to satisfy WP:GNG, as with any other secondary school in the western world. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:50, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty of sourcing to satisfy WP:GNG, as with any other secondary school in the western world. In this case we have an unreferenced, article. That makes it a stub, with refs it becomes a well written Start. I see three editors who like to delete school articles. One who bases the vote on their inability to instantly find an on line reference. We need to consider paper references. We have another that tries to apply WP:MILL as if were member of a boyband. We have a third who likes to use a POV stock phrase, with no evidence of where he has researched. Our task is to evaluate whether evidence will exist- not whether we or the editors have found it.--ClemRutter (talk) 16:55, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can you please share 3 indepth, independent sources please. 1друг (talk) 21:43, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you, 1друг tell us about the details of your search of libraries in Indiana that backs up your assertion that sources do not exist? Status quo does carry weight on Wikipedia. Burden is on you to show that sources do not exist, and you absolutely cannot do that without a search of offline sources. So how's the weather in Scottsburg this time of year. I doubt ClemRutter can get there from Britain, and I can't afford a cross country trip right now. THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT SOURCES BE ONLINE. Never has-been; never will be. 209.63.121.20 (talk) 22:04, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, because "You can't prove there aren't offline sources about the rats that live under my house. So they must be notable" is a totally reasonable, guideline based way to approach this. I find it rather ironic that people like ClemRutter get all salty by someone applying WP:MILL in their vote but then their perfectly fine with nonsensical reasoning like that. At the end of the day, having WP:THREE sources available is an extremely low bar that anything notable should be able to pass. Otherwise, it's not worth keeping. Especially if all the keep voters can muster up instead is "keep because it's not a boyband." --Adamant1 (talk) 02:59, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The claim that sources exist without even telling us what these sources are should be given no credibility at all. When we have an article that is so weak that it cannot even tell us when the institution was founded I see little reason to keep the article. Asserting that sources exist is not enough, people need to actually state what these sources are. Verrifiaility means that the sources need to be found and used, not a mere handwave given to try to convince us the sources exist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:51, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hold on as I look for sources. I found one from Bowling Green, Kentucky in 1990. It took me only two minutes Here it is. Scorpions13256 (talk) 00:06, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Here is another from 1949. It is an AP article. Scorpions13256 (talk) 00:16, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have found a total of two sources with minimal effort. WP:AUD is clearly satisfied. WP:GNG will also likely be satisfied if I do more searching. Scorpions13256 (talk) 00:18, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind, I have not checked Indiana at all. Scorpions13256 (talk) 00:21, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Have a third. Also, it appears that the school had a state championship title in 1989 or 1990. I should check using those key words. That will be my last comment. Scorpions13256 (talk) 00:31, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Last source. This one is from Indianapolis in 1949. I think I can safely say that WP:GNG are also met. Scorpions13256 (talk) 00:42, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you not actually incorporating the sources and information you are finding into the article?John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:09, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They don't need to per WP:NEXIST. I'll do it anyway though. Scorpions13256 (talk) 16:48, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how many AfDs I've seen closed as keep because people found some sources, but then they aren't ever added to the articles. It way sucks when that happens. Whatever WP:NEXIST says I don't think it's in the spirit of Wikipedia to just turn AfDs into references lists that are divorced from the articles the references are about. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:59, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Scorpions13256: Interesting, Can you share how did you find these sources? I want to learn this. Analysing your sources [6] This is nowhere indepth about the school. [7] Protest event, not considerable. [8] Its related to WKU just a name of playground doesn't make the school notable. [9] This is again the same story which is not even independent. None of the source is even near to passing WP:ORG. 1друг (talk) 11:21, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I found them because I have access to Newspapers.com. I clipped them. Why would a protest event not be enough to make the school notable? The Indianapolis News is most certainly independent because it is several counties away. Scorpions13256 (talk) 16:37, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ClemRutter, Necrothesp, what do you think?. Scorpions13256 (talk) 17:36, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:46, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging people who you know will probably go with keep no matter what really comes off like campigning. Especially with someone as clearly bias and one sided about this as Necrothesp is. Adamant1 (talk) 17:56, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Adamant1, I forgot t ping Rondolinda. Scorpions13256 (talk) 20:39, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete I've looked around and found WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, which isn't a policy in itself, but points to a RfC that determined that Secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist. I'll take that as a basis.

Going from there, I must admit that sources apparently exist, as shown by Scorpions13256 above. However, those that are of good quality (and not local, in case of the Indiana one) are exclusively about the protest event. In that case, I would argue in favour of finding more sources and then creating an article about that event. There is, in my opinion, not enough WP:SIGCOV about the school itself.

Now, I actually believe we can find several more local newspaper articles with similar coverage as "school X hosts local sports event" (e.g. that), "school X wishes graduates all the best", "school X secured municipal funding as expected". In fact, I believe we can find these sort of newspaper sources for just about any school in the Western World (which basically is @Necrothesp's point). For example, I have several newspaper articles at home which I cut from our local newspaper, because my classmates where mentioned in it or sth. Thus, I believe we can find sufficient coverage of this quality to guarantee that just about any school satisfies the notability guidelines. But does it really? Because then we would have come to my original point, the RfC, which states that mere existence is not a reason for notability. And I agree with that, I wouldn't believe my own former school is notable.

I believe that the strike is a notable event, but that notability is not contagious. If we had at least two more things that connect to the school, I would be convinced and change to keep. For example, the unsourced "performing arts" section claims several wins in championships for the school. Combine that with the strike, and voilà, I believe we'd have notability for the school. However, I could not find sources for these. "TriState Circuit Championship 2011" for example gives no results in my google search, and I could also find nothing about the others. @Scorpions13256, maybe you can find something with your newspaper access?

--LordPeterII (talk) 18:47, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be down for an article about the protest if the necessary references can be found. As it sounds semi-notable. Just on it's own and not in relation to making the school notable also. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:54, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I found two new sources, but they aren't very in-depth. [10][11] Scorpions13256 (talk) 19:46, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I found another source from Illinois, but it is about the protests again. There was also another source in Indianapolis about a student injured in a school play in 1968, but I cannot find it. [12]. Per WP:AUD, don't we only need one regional source? Scorpions13256 (talk) 19:51, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion was sought, so I will reiterate. Getting personal certainly does not help the debate. We at WP:WPSCHOOL follow WP:GNG where it is clear that notable means' it has been noted', not that this is 'exceptional'. It is convenient to define multiple- as 3, as two would be open to debate. It is inconceivable in North America, or Europe that a publicly funded institution would not leave an significant audit trail as it was being monitored at multiple levels by accountants and politicians health authorities etc. Then we have the architects and building contractors who will show case their new work. On line they will leave reports.

As you rightly said I have not attempted to do a site visit. So if I can get a little help from my colleagues in North America. I can give you a few clues. My first attempt at a google <Scotsburg High School> gave me //www.in.gov/core/results.html?query=scotsburg+high+school&collection=global-collection&profile=_default&start_rank=11 A spelling mistake but 5000 results ans what I need the core Indiana web site. Just taking that address and there is an inbuilt search- type in Scottsburg High School and I had 3000+ references, mostly to pdf. These are goldmines - look at Graduation Counts and from the numbers we have complete information so we write a demographics and academics section.

For a AfD we have to prove that there is no information available to verify the facts that an editor may write in future, I am not claiming that all 3000+ will give the school significant coverage... but we have done our job of showing masses of sources do exist. A lot of US article like to write sporting achievement and glancing through google looking for a .gov address I saw plenty of pages that could be used to reference those (or not) as well.ClemRutter (talk) 16:09, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Where does the whole thing about coverage not being trivial name drops say that it has to be "exceptional" instead? Let alone where have I or anyone else that has voted deleted and discussed the type of coverage we think needs to exist for notability used the word "exceptional"? Also, specific people were pinged and you were perfectly fine with things being personal when you said I was treating schools like boy bands etc. etc. So, really, spare us all the fake concern about it. Adamant1 (talk)

Delete the fake concern then- not my best sentence.!ClemRutter (talk) 17:50, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? --Adamant1 (talk) 18:18, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I don't get it. Perfectly notable school. Bearian (talk) 15:45, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How so? --Adamant1 (talk) 18:14, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:HEY effort by Scorpions13256 and other additions to the history of the school meet WP:GNG. Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 13:15, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:14, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

George Jacobson

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

Fails to meet WP:BIO. Jamesallain85 (talk) 16:32, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Jamesallain85 (talk) 16:32, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:01, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:36, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:BASIC as he has received SIGCOV in multiple RS. He is notable for his well-publicized role in the Tet offensive attack on US Embassy (for which he received the Distinguished Honor Award and Award for Heroism arguably meeting #1 of WP:ANYBIO), as head of Civil Operations and Revolutionary Development Support and in Operation Frequent Wind. Mztourist (talk) 03:28, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO if a single Navy Cross does not meet the standard as notable I cannot agree that a Distinguished Honor Award and Award for Heroism would. As far as his role in the Tet Offensive, his role was not significant to the point of being notable. He shot one VC inside of the US Embassy. He did not hold significant rank, his highest award is the Legion of Merit, he did not head any significant organization or entity, the page states he was the assistant chief of staff not the chief of staff of the Civil Operations and Revolutionary Development Support. In my opinion, this page does not meet the currant standard concerning notability. Jamesallain85

You put this up for deletion, you can comment, but you don't get to !vote here. The Distinguished Honor Award and Award for Heroism have been awarded far less often than the Navy Cross. His shooting of the VC during Tet was widely reported. Jacobson was head of CORDS from July 1971 to February 1973. As required by WP:BASIC, he has "received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." Mztourist (talk) 10:14, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep concur with Mztourist, notable for his involvement in key events of the Vietnam War. In addition to the RS literature already cited in the article, he is mentioned extensively in Butler's Fall of Saigon, which I have, also Last Men Out (but not as prominently). Zawed (talk) 09:58, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep His activities in Vietnam are certainly notable. CORDS was a major part of the US effort. Claiming it was not seems disingenuous to me. Intothat darkness 16:59, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He meets WP:BASIC which is much more important than quibbling about job titles. We are here to build an encyclopedia, not to disassemble one. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:01, 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 01:36, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of number-one songs of 2021 (India)

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

Don't quite understand the relevance and accuracy of the content. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. WP:INDISCRIMINATE RationalPuff (talk) 16:10, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 16:10, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 16:10, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:01, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:01, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: this is the first ever official chart in India, and it literally only began a week ago, hence the shortage of information, but it will expand as the year progresses. Richard3120 (talk) 19:41, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete India has been an independent country for 73 years...and this is their first official international chart of music, ever? Very doubtful, and this chart is literally an unsourced PNG (even on their official industry site) without any criteria. Nate • (chatter) 22:48, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mrschimpf: That's not a surprise, actually – a very large number of countries in the world have only started tracking charts in their country within the last decade, because it was almost impossible for them to do before the streaming era. Even many major European countries had no official charts until the late 1990s. Richard3120 (talk) 01:56, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While the chart itself is official and even has public backing from the IFPI, it might be somewhat misleading as this chart only ranks non-Indian songs ("International Top 20 Singles"). As such, there might be Indian songs that performed better than some of the songs here. Furthermore, there's a big question mark regarding methodology as well as the importance of domestic platforms in it: this would be less of a problem were a regular, all-songs chart were to exist in India, but couple previous points with the fact that this chart has not seemed to garner any significant coverage at all... at best, I'd consider it a WP:TOOSOON. Toyota Impreza (talk) 12:05, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As a new chart, this needs time to get established to show there is actual significance for songs reaching number one in India. Just existing is not enough for a standalone list. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 17:13, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars reasoning. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 12:49, 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. Can be redirected if desired, once he is mentioned in the target article. Sandstein 08:53, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

R Venugopal

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

I was surprised this didn't have a notability tag after looking through the sources, only to see notability tags have been removed twice. Looking through the sources in the article, I don't think he passes WP:GNG. Possibly promotional considering the image is an "own work." SportingFlyer T·C 14:33, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 14:33, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:48, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:48, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 05:21, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:42, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Puff piece. none of the citations included are about him, rather just passing mentions. Fails WP:GNG RationalPuff (talk) 17:05, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per the available references which are from reliable resources, i think the subject passes WP:BASIC. GermanKity (talk) 02:56, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The sources have to be more than reliable in order to justify a keep !vote - which sources do you think show significant coverage? SportingFlyer T·C 09:03, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@GermanKity: So you are implying this (which is obviously the work of somebody related to the article's subject) meets WP:BASIC and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harsh Goenka does not. You claim that the references in Harsh Goenka's article are paid, but are not averse to keeping an article which is most probably a paid work. Jupitus Smart 16:01, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can't say whether the creator is connected with subject or not here. But it has Significant references that are from reliable resources. GermanKity (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 16:04, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to Petroleum and Explosives Safety Organisation. Most of the references just mention his position in relation to the organisation he works and quote him, they don't discuss him or his work. I couldn't anything different through google search. The only one which gives some independent commentary of him is this one which I don't think is sufficient on its own. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 21:34, 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 per WP:AVALANCHE: an overwhelming amount of support, lending to an early closure. Consensus is that the subject is unlikely to become again a low-profile individual, and has been the subject of fairly significant press coverage; her notability as a political figure with significant press coverage strongly meets WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. WP:BLP1E's criteria do not apply here. Reminder that problems with the content of the article should be brought up on the article's talk page. Nominator has also acted in an uncivil manner in the discussion. (non-admin closure) SWinxy (talk) 00:04, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

India Walton

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

WP:BLP of a person whose only claim of notability, as things stand today, is having won her political party's primary to be its candidate in a pending mayoral election. As always, this is not grounds for a Wikipedia article in and of itself -- a person has to hold a notable political office, not just run for one, to pass WP:NPOL, and the historic distinction that she will represent if she wins an election she hasn't won yet is not in and of itself a reason to treat her candidacy as more special than everybody else's candidacies.
Furthermore, when I first saw this article it was treating her final victory as already a done deal, by templating her as if she was already the mayor-elect -- but no matter how likely it may seem that she'll be the winner in the end, Wikipedia cannot act as if it's already a foregone conclusion. There have been elections where the presumed frontrunner died, or withdrew from the election for various reasons, or turned out to be such a uniquely terrible or scandal-prone candidate that the voters went against their usual partisan leanings to produce a surprise victory for the other party -- so no matter how much of an advantage the candidate may seem to have, Wikipedia simply can't treat her as the winner until she's actually declared the winner in November.
Since the general election is less than six months away, I wouldn't necessarily object to draftifying this so that it can be moved back into mainspace quickly if she does win -- but as of today she's still only a candidate, and that isn't grounds for inclusion in Wikipedia per se. Bearcat (talk) 14:57, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:57, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:57, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: Her win is one of the biggest socialist victories in American history and is all over the front pages of mainstream media. Are you mad bro? 15:08, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Winning a primary is not grounds for a Wikipedia article per se, and having a blip of "person wins primary" coverage the morning after the primary just makes her a WP:BLP1E. Not mad at all bro.

Here's how you figure out whether a person has earned a Wikipedia article or not: imagine that she dies of a heart attack tomorrow morning, so that she never accomplishes anything else more notable than winning a primary to be the candidate for an office she was not able to actually hold due to her death. Are you still able to come up with a credible reason why even if that happens, people would still need an article about her to exist ten years from now anyway? That's the test she has to pass, not just the existence of a momentary blip of "morning after" coverage in a context that isn't inherently notable — winning the mayoral election would pass the ten year test, certainly, but simply being a candidate in it does not.
And also, since America has already had numerous socialist officeholders, an avowed socialist winning a primary hardly qualifies as "one of the biggest socialist victories in American history" by a long shot. Bearcat (talk) 15:22, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Counterpoint - you just created a page for this dumb television series that hasn't even been filmed yet - Shoresy. Who are you to judge what is notable? And are you threatening the life of a politician? Sure sounds like it. 15:35, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

The base notability test for television shows is not "has won election to and thereby served in a notable office", it is "has been formally upfronted by a television network as a show it's going to broadcast within the upcoming season" — and we have a rule about WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, which clearly explains why "this person has to have an article if this other completely unrelated topic that has absolutely nothing to do with it has an article" is not a productive or useful argument.
And I'm not even going to engage the absurd claim that a "death threat" can be extracted from anything I said, except to warn you that you can be blocked from editing Wikipedia at all if you persist in bad faith lines of attack. Bearcat (talk) 15:45, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Do not delete this article. She will become the first socialist mayor of a large city in the US since 1960. The bad editors of this site really suck. You know who you are. You make this site worse by the day. AllThatJazz2012 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 15:38, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - this Wikipedia article is created in order to bias the election in favor of someone. Encylopedia such as Wikipedia is not a social platform for political agitation BEFORE some election is over. EleOk6e3ih (talk) 15:43, 23 June 2021 (UTC)— EleOk6e3ih (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The primary's already over and she'd be unopposed in the general election.15:47, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Even if there isn't a Republican candidate on the ballot at all (and I'm not finding any sources which are saying that there won't be), there can still be write-in candidates — so it's not at all a given that she'll be running unopposed. Bearcat (talk) 15:54, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This makes Walton a presumptive mayor. In a city where every mayor since 1966 has been a Democrat, and a city that recently voted 77% for Biden, the chances that Walton will fail to become mayor are theoretically possible, although low enough that we can call Walton the presumptive mayor. Legolover26 (talk) 18:54, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Front page of the New York Times today. The "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball" applies equally to the highly unlikely notion subject will suffer a fatal heart attack tomorrow or that a write-in candidate could defeat her. At issue is what's the default: delete and recreate later or keep and delete later; the latter is far easier in terms of process and efficiency (for non-admins anyway) than the former.-Brian Dell (talk) 15:57, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not just indiscriminately keep people just because their names have appeared in newspapers — rather, we also take into account the context of what the person was getting coverage for. The current coverage, which is just morning-after-the-primaries coverage of the winner of a primary, just makes her a WP:BLP1E as things currently stand, and does not render her a person who has passed our standards for permanent notability yet. Determining when a person has crossed the line to earning permanent coverage in an encyclopedia is a question of "if what's already true today is the most notable thing she ever accomplishes in her life, and she never accomplishes anything more, then is what's already true today enough to earn permanent coverage in an encyclopedia or not?" Winning the mayoral election, and thereby serving as mayor, would clearly pass that test — but simply being her party's candidate for mayor does not. Bearcat (talk) 16:16, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but Wikipedia is not a promo website. Do Wikipedia receive payment to do promo add? In Facebook they indicate promo content as "paid add". This is encyclopedia, so delete and recreate later should be default. EleOk6e3ih (talk) 16:17, 23 June 2021 (UTC)— EleOk6e3ih (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

This does not correctly interpret WP:BLP1E, which can only be used to deny articles if all three condition are met. Walton fails condition 2, because Walton is not likely to remain a low-profile individual. If Walton becomes mayor, Walton will not be a low-profile individual. Although theoretically Walton could be prevented from being mayor by a heart attack, a write-in, a third party, a Republican, a nuclear strike, or just by dropping out, the likelihood of all of these events combined is arguably well under 50%, the minimum probability threshold to consider those events likely. Legolover26 (talk) 19:17, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as there are no other candidates in the general election winning in the Democratic primary is tantamount to victory. Jon698 (talk) 16:20, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, another fortune teller. Is this a swarm paid to do political promo work? EleOk6e3ih (talk) 16:22, 23 June 2021 (UTC)— EleOk6e3ih (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

@EleOk6e3ih: Well since I have nine great articles, over forty Did You Knows, and have been active since 2017 I would say no. Meanwhile you have a grand total of 21 edits and most of them revolve around AfDs. So please tell me who you are a sockpuppet of. Jon698 (talk) 16:25, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Clearly, she is notable. The idea that India Walton is not going to win the election where she is running unopposed is grasping at straws. Also from Wikipedia:Notability_(politics): A person is notable if "The person is a major local political figures who have received significant press coverage outside their specific region." There are stories about her victory in NYTimes, Washington Post and NPR this morning. Surely more stories are soon to follow. Thus, she cleary meets this criterion. beanstash (talk) 16:22, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Elections in which the presumed frontrunner was not the final winner in the end really can and really do happen in the world. There really have been candidates who went over so poorly with the voters that they actually handed the victory to another candidate who should not ordinarily have been able to win under normal circumstances (e.g. Scott Brown winning a "safe Democratic" senate seat in 2010, entirely because the "certain to win" Democratic candidate ran a terrible campaign; Lisa Murkowski winning as a write-in candidate in the same year after losing her party's primary, because the official Republican candidate who "should" have won was too extreme even for Alaska). And there have been elections where a candidate died before election day, or had to step down because of a scandal or a personal health issue. So just because a candidate is favoured to win does not mean it's always a foregone conclusion that they will win — so we don't keep articles about candidates just because they're favoured to win, we wait until the election is over and they have won. Which is why it isn't that I have to prove that one of those things will happen here before this can be deleted — it's that you have to prove that one of these things definitely won't happen here before this can be kept.
And as of right now, all of the coverage she has still just makes her a WP:BLP1E. Bearcat (talk) 17:20, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Her win in the primary is in itself significant. If you actually read the WP:BLP1E guideline you keep citing here, it applies only to individuals who remain, and are likely to remain, low-profile individuals. Clearly this is not the case here, as Jon698 has also pointed out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beanstash (talk • contribs) 20:32, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Bdell555. I think this is splitting hairs; she's going to be the mayor and people are interested to know about her now, not just when she's inaugurated. Moreover, we don't lose anything by using this window of greater attention to build a higher-quality page. Note that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's page was also created the night she won her primary (and she wasn't even unopposed in November 2018), so keeping this article wouldn't be unprecedented. Davey2116 (talk) 16:23, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AOC wasn't kept just for winning a primary per se — she was kept because her coverage had already internationalized so massively and so enduringly that people in foreign countries, who literally couldn't name a single sitting US Congressperson if they tried, still knew about AOC. She was kept because she was already the third most famous American politician in the world, behind Obama and Trump but well ahead of anybody else running for any office that year, not because winning a primary is grounds for a Wikipedia article in and of itself. Bearcat (talk) 17:20, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I usually agree with Bearcat's AfD nominations on unelected politicians, but this is not one of those cases. Walton has been declared the winner of the primary, and that is tantamount to election as there are no Republicans running in the general election. She likely meets GNG now, and there's no benefit for the project or our readers to say she can't have an article until November. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:42, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This feels like Wiki-lawyering on a technicality. She's almost certain to become the mayor of a major city, and it's hard to imagine a situation that prevents her from becoming mayor which doesn't also make her more notable. We generally allow articles about "presumptive" office-holders before they've been sworn in; this situation is similar. Happy to revisit if the presumption is invalidated. pburka (talk) 16:52, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, we don't keep articles about presumed frontrunners in advance of general election ballots being counted. Once they have been declared the winner of the election we don't have to wait until they're formally sworn into the office before we're allowed to start the article, but that's not the same thing — they still have to be declared the actual winner of the general election first, and don't get kept just because they're favoured to win an election that hasn't happened yet. Bearcat (talk) 17:20, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say she was favored: I said she's presumptive. The US President is also presumptive until an obscure college elects them and the results are confirmed by Congress, but nobody argues that the presumptive president isn't notable. Note that news reports are using the same "presumptive" language, e.g. WIVB and The Week. pburka (talk) 17:38, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as creator. Criterion 2 of WP:NPOL also states that the subject is notable if there is significant coverage in the media. The fact that she is a socialist, which is rare in and of itself, has generated this coverage. dekema (Formerly Buffaboy) (talk) 16:55, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The existence of some campaign coverage does not exempt a candidate from having to pass NPOL — every candidate in every election everywhere can always claim to have enough campaign coverage to exempt themselves from having to pass NPOL, so if the existence of some campaign coverage were all it took then we would always have to keep an article about everybody who was ever a candidate for anything. So the test isn't "campaign coverage exists", it is "the general election has already taken place and the person has already won it". Bearcat (talk) 17:20, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She faces no general election opposition, meaning she is essentially the mayor-elect barring extraordinary circumstances. Even if the article is deleted, it can just be reposted in a couple months when she officially becomes mayor. Deleting it seems so redundant and almost petty, like she is going to be mayor it's not like she is some random candidate. (Stanloona2020) 17:48, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I would argue for a delete if there was a major-party candidate - any candidate, even one with a slim chance of winning - opposing her in the general. But there isn't. So she's essentially mayor-elect. As for the hypotheticals - she could die before taking office, for instance...okay? WP:CRYSTAL cuts both ways here. Media coverage is treating her as mayor-elect, so it's bizarre to say Wikipedia shouldn't follow suit for specious reasons.I am the radiohead (talk) 18:00, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. WP:POLITICIAN says, "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline." In other words, being the Democratic nominee for mayor does not automatically establish the subject as notable per WP:POLITICIAN, but being the subject of articles from various media sources could nevertheless establish her as notable per WP:GNG. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:00, 23 June 2021 (UTC
Strong Keep. This is basically Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez all over again. Elishop (talk) 18:24, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. (Please forgive format errors; I am a first-time user). First, let me report that I am in Buffalo and came to the India Walton article simply to get information by which to respond to questions from out of town, and found what I wanted; the article was very useful. I suspect others will do the same, since Walton is a pretty new political figure. Usefulness seems to me an argument for keeping the article. Second, I have read the discussion and find the newswothiness arguments more convincing. The odds for Walton becoming Mayor are overwhelming, and the primary selection results themselves are a political earthquake, changing the political landscape, probably permanently, in NY's 2nd largest city. These election results are a really big deal, and my wife and I are getting inquiries from people in other states asking us to interpret the event. HartBuffalo (talk) 18:34, 23 June 2021 (UTC)HartBuffalo[reply]

Keep India Walton is clearly notable beyond the average winner of a mayoral primary. She has received extensive coverage in the news media due to her upset victory and because she represents a political ethos that until recently would have resulted in pariah status. She is thus significant not becuase of the fact that she won a mayoral primary, but becuase of the particular context and the historcial significance of her victory. DJLayton4 (talk) 18:44, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:03, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep, as per everybody else. She's more notable than your typical primary winner both because her priamry victory has been almost universally recognized as tantamount to election (I believe there won't be any other names on the ballot in the general election), and because her political positions and unexpected defeat of a heavily favored and long-term incumbent are both noteworthy in and of themselves, as evidenced by national coverage of this local race. In general the Wikipedia notability guidelines say that winning a primary isn't enough to make someone notable; they do not say that only winning a general election makes someone notable. --Jfruh (talk) 19:12, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Does seem like WP:RECENTISM and WP:CRYSTALBALL a bit, but the proposed language at Wikipedia:Notability_(politics)#Local_politicians seems cogent; "Mayors of cities of at least regional prominence have usually survived AfD". NickCT (talk) 19:30, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and snow close. She is getting coverage in national newspapers for her primary win. I just found this article in The Intercept published a few hours ago which says "Walton will all but definitely win Buffalo’s general mayoral election in November." Local news organizations have already projected that she will win the general election given that she is the only candidate, and have said so since the race was called last night. The idea that this is premature is based in fantasy and contrary to multiple independent reliable sources. I agree with others that NOTCRYSTAL means that we shouldn't delete articles on unopposed candidates on the assumption they'll unexpectedly die or lose to a write-in candidate that doesn't exist. Do we seriously want to repeat the Donna Strickland incident? Why are we so intent on trying to delete articles of women who are clearly notable? This is a waste of our time and I recommend early closure. — Wug·a·po·des 19:40, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep National coverage! She won! Snow keep. — Mainly 19:47, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She is currently on a headline of several news publications, and will probably continue to make them. Seems noteworthy enough to me. Larcondos (talk) 20:00, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, including because "The Democratic nominee is always the overwhelming favorite in a Buffalo mayoral election," (Politico) and :"Republicans have not fielded a candidate for mayor and have not won City Hall in Buffalo since the 1960s, making the Democratic primary winner all but certain to take office in January. If victorious when all ballots are counted, Walton will be Buffalo’s first female and first Black female mayor," (WaPo) and due to the significant coverage that is more than routine local election news, e.g. also NYT, CNN, CBS News, Rolling Stone, USAToday per WP:BASIC/WP:GNG. Beccaynr (talk) 20:08, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but amend. This article should be kept. She is the presumptive nominee to be a very heavy favorite for a major city. It is likely that people will hear that news and look her up. The goal of this site, in this context, should be to serve as a good resource for those people. In this way, the article is currently failing. The infobox makes it seem that she has already been elected. She has not. She is not mayor-elect until she wins the general. And she sure as heck isn't the incumbent. The incumbent is literally the current mayor. She is not currently the mayor. Keep in mind, it is not wikipedia's job to be PredictIt and state how likely we think events are to occur. It needs to report facts. The current fact is that she is the presumptive democratic nominee. I should note that the logic presented at the top of this argument would have precluded the current president-elect of Peru from having a page between the first and second round of that presidential election. I think we should acknowledge that logic is unsound. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.119.16.61 (talk) 18:29, June 23, 2021 (UTC)

Strong keep Regardless of whether it is finalized, she is headlining numerous sources and publications for the upset. Even if she is not notable for being presumptive mayor-elect (she is) she's still notable for having been declared as it and extensively covered for it. NekomancerJaidyn (talk) 22:58, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but amend If the person is basically guaranteed to become the mayor, than there should be an article about it. The "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball" thing does not apply here, as the page is not making a prediction through the text presented. As a matter of fact, the existence of this article does not depend on whether she wins. She is already notable as it stands. WP:NPOL, as previously cited, does not disqualify her, as she is not notable for being in office. She is notable for the national attention. If a person is notable for a stupid reason, that doesn't make the person unnotable. Just because she is notable for the mere virtually certain prospect of becoming a socialist mayor doesn't mean you can deny their notability because you don't agree with the reasoning. She seems to meet all the requirements per WP:BIO.

However, it also seems to me that the wording currently being used is too current-y. "If elected, she will be the first socialist mayor of a large city in the United States since Frank Zeidler", for example, should be worded to not sound like a current events news source. I cannot think of a possible wording that could make this be objective. And if there isn't any, this kind of content should be deleted altogether until she actually wins. Additionally, I agree with the above "Keep but amend" opinion. To go further, it comes off as promotional, as she didn't actually win. I propose that the campaign website be taken down, and perhaps also the party affiliation. As per WP:NPOL, she has never held office, and so is not notable for being in office. Because of this, it seems implied that she should not be treated as notable for her political campaign. Therefore, the campaign website and party affiliation should not be listed in the infobox as if she were a person that has been in office.TheGEICOgecko (talk) 23:29, 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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:57, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Back of the Hill station

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

The remaining street-running stops of the E Branch (with the exception of Heath Street) are nothing more than just bus stops. Considering the local precedent at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bynner Street station and the more regionally distant but related precedent at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manchester Avenue station, this article, as well as Fenwood Road station, Mission Park station, and Riverway station should either be deleted or merged with the primary E Branch article. Heath Street should be salvaged, however. Nick Boppel (talk) 15:05, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Keep: As the sources in the article indicate, the subject meets the GNG. (In the AfDs cited above, the station stops lacked citations.) Done deal. Aside from that I have a hard time figuring out how one categorizes a subway station as a "bus stop," that's a subjective value judgment that has nothing to do with any notability criteria on Wikipedia. Ravenswing 17:48, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This is a wholly different situation than the Bynner Street AfD - I nominated those stops because there was no reliable information available, not even what intersections the stops were actually at. These are well-documented stops with historical information that can be added (Riverway in particular was a major junction); lack of stop infrastructure is not a guarantee of lack of notability. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:03, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This isn't a policy-backed rationale, but it makes a poor reading experience to delete a few stations in the middle of the line. It messes with navigation, making a gap when navigating through the stations via the adjacent station templates. If more than a few of a line's non-major or transfer stations has an article it's better to have articles for all of them. However an alternative to keep the continuity would be convert these articles into a list (ex. something similar to List of state routes in Nevada shorter than one mile). Jumpytoo Talk 21:25, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I can see the rationale for keeping the article for consistency reasons, but I do agree with the nominator that it's essentially just a bus stop, as can be seen here. It's not a subway station. It's no more notable than thousands of very similar tram stops in European cities that we would never have articles on in a million years. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:30, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator Comment My issue here is the apparent double standards for these types of articles. We can't have different policies surrounding these situations for different geographic locations or different transportation agencies. The question is "Are streetcar stations that are nothing more than an ordinary bus stop notable simply because they serve streetcars and not just buses? Yes or No." If the answer is "Yes", the articles on SEPTA Routes 101/102 should be restored (this would apply as well if the argument for keeping is consistency). If the answer is "No", these E Branch stations that are nothing more than just bus stops should be deleted, but Heath Street should be kept because it has actual infrastructure (the loop and the operator's building). A general principle needs to be applied here - we can't say that these minimal streetcar "stations" are notable for the MBTA but not notable for SEPTA, or anything of the sort. Nick Boppel (talk) 15:56, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the article should probably be called Back of the Hill stop, since — as the nom. noted – it is hardly a full-fledged station. AlgaeGraphix (talk) 21:47, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- There was a 2017 RfC about whether to use "station" or "stop" for articles like this. It's definitely an issue where any discussion should take place at the project level, rather than about individual articles. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:18, 16 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) 14:56, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, adequately sourced, and sounds like there may be platforms added in the future. NemesisAT (talk) 21:16, 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} 22:41, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Coles

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV. References are profiles. scope_creep^Talk 15:59, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:57, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:53, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Scope creep:, I appreciate you taking the time to review the article and give me feedback. I think the article should stay! I went through the article and made some significant changes! I performed more vigorous research and found sources that I think we can agree, are suitable to Wikipedia. Initially, the biography was written with the sources that were available online. I went in and added more reliable secondary and tertiary sources, and I removed the profiles pages (my inexperience led me to add those, my apologies). Because of the lack of publications on Tony Coles coupled with the consensus about his life and work amongst the sources available, I wrote the article with NPOV with verifiable and notable sources I found. I added a source from the Gale database; the biographical information presented from the Gale biography online collection is a very reliable and scholarly tertiary source. Material was also sourced from Nature America, Inc: (Nature Biotechnology), a peer reviewed scientific journal published monthly by the Nature Research. I also added material from sources like Life Science Leader.

Additionally, according to Wikipedia:Systemic bias, people of color, like Tony Coles are under represented on Wikipedia and I believe that it would be a great service to shed some light on his life and work. He should have an equal opportunity to have an article about himself, especially after reading about his inspiring accomplishments! I believe to bridge the gap underrepresentation, the article should definitely stay. https://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Envato&lang=en&q=Wikipedia:Systemic_bias

I’d love to work together with you to build on the article and get some constructive criticism from you to make the article better if possible! --RealPharmer3 (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:18, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article references are all press-releases and stock price sites except for the odd bad ref. It would need a complete rewrite to make it conform to the WP:MOS. It is a TNT case. It also fails WP:SIGCOV as they're is no one in-depth, secondary source amongst the lot of them. scope_creep^Talk 09:35, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the sourcing does not meet GNG. Not every person appointed to some advisory committee by the president is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:07, 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. Fenix down (talk) 19:26, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tomasz Borowiec

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

While I appreciate the contributions of the article creator, this particular footballer only played three football matches in the II liga of Poland, failing WP:NFOOTBALL, and the sources are just stats. Geschichte (talk) 13:28, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:40, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:40, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:40, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per nom. Dr Salvus 16:29, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:46, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG & NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:47, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes WP:NFOOTBALL. The II liga is the old name of the current I liga. OLLSZCZ talk 02:25, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep passes NFOOTY.--Ortizesp (talk) 04:26, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- Delete per below, seems he didn't make an appearance and thus fails NFOOTY.--Ortizesp (talk) 20:52, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep passes NFOOTY Dr Salvus 10:03, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@OLLSZCZ, Ortizesp, and Dr Salvus: - no appearances here, and even if he did make an appearance or two, 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 10:08, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GiantSnowman, does it mean that players must make more than one/two appearances for becoming notable? Dr Salvus 10:14, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It means that GNG is more important than SNG - so a player technically meeting SNG but failing GNG would not be notable. Giant Snowman 10:37, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

”no appearances here” 90minut.pl only shows appearances in that basic display of players who have played in the Ekstraklasa. So a player can still pass NFOOTBALL without showing up on this table. OLLSZCZ (talk) 16:26, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - can't find anything to suggest that this player has enough significant coverage to show a passing of WP:GNG Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:00, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article about former semi-pro footballer which comprehensively fails WP:GNG. I can't find online English- or Polish-language coverage aside from some database entries (e.g., lechia.net and 90minut.pl). Most of the Polish-language coverage of Tomasz Borowiec relates to a kick-boxer, not the former footballer. Jogurney (talk) 21:41, 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 04:54, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mai Ngo

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

User Recreated without solving the issue. References do not show the notability of the subject. Fails WP:GNG. GermanKity (talk) 09:26, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 09:26, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 09:26, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 09:26, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:11, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:11, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't appear notable enough. Terribly cited. Dilbaggg (talk) 21:17, 18 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 13:28, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NMODEL and GNG. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:37, 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 delete. ✗plicit 14:39, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Modere

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

Non-notable business. Current version of the article is unreferenced, but that's because some recent promotional (possible COI) editing. However, previous versions were also weakly supported, and much of the cites had to do with some earlier tax fraud etc. related to the company. A search finds nothing that comes even close to RS sigcov; the best I could come up with were a couple of Forbes 'sites' pieces and some press release regurgitations, none of which establish notability. Fails WP:GNG / WP:CORP. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:39, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:39, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:39, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:39, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:39, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:39, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:26, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing notable. Promo article. EleOk6e3ih (talk) 16:06, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Exclusively promotional and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to serve as an encyclopedic article. Article has subjective and biased style, as well as puffery and unverified sources that lack independence. —FORMALDUDE ^(talk) 05:02, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I couldn't find sufficient evidence of notability. Suonii180 (talk) 10:39, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to National Institute of Technology Calicut. Daniel (talk) 23:55, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Technology Business Incubator TBI-NITC

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

Fails WP:NORG and WP:BRANCH. I see a number of passing mentions and one source covering the launch of this program, but there isn't enough significant coverage to pass CORPDEPTH or GNG. M4DU7 (talk) 06:48, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 06:48, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 06:48, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 06:48, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 06:48, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:35, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:22, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing notable. Promo article. EleOk6e3ih (talk) 16:07, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to National Institute of Technology Calicut. Does not appear to meet WP:NORG independently otherwise. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 22:38, 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 speedy delete as WP:CSD#G5. Any editor is free to create the redirect which was proposed in this discussion. ✗plicit 01:13, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Raoul ÇaRoule

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

This fictional character from the Cars franchise fails WP:GNG, I could find no reliable sources that talk about him and the article is currently unsourced. Devonian Wombat (talk) 12:09, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The page seems to pretty heavily copy from https://worldofcarsdrivein.fandom.comview_html.php?sq=Envato&lang=en&q=Raoul_%C3%87aRoule (Duplication Detector). That means that it could be G12'd in its current state, although IMO that's kind of cheating since the copyright issue can be solved just by giving edit-summary attribution, as that's a CC-BY-SA-licensed wiki. Still, something to be aware of. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 12:16, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Redirect per Qwaiiplayer, maybe copy some content (with appropriate attribution) to the character's section of List of Cars characters. --Chris (talk) 15:30, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that the creating user has been blocked indef as a sock of a banned user, so we can probably just G5 the article at this point. I don't think any of the cleanup edits made by other users rise to the level of "substantial." --Chris (talk) 19:41, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:38, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Cars characters#Cars 2. Not enough significant coverage to meet GNG and warrant a separate article. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:43, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:44, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:44, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Cars characters#Cars 2 per above, fails GNG. Even most Cars franchise main characters like Luigi, Ramone, Flo etc. do not have their own articles. Anonymous 7481 (talk) 15:59, 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 per WP:CSD#G11. Randykitty (talk) 12:50, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

John Wizy Cool

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

Unsourced WP:BLP of a rapper who has not seemingly received any coverage in secondary sources, a search brought up only a scattering of primary sources. I doubt the non-notable awards listed without sourcing would be enough to pass ANYBIO. Devonian Wombat (talk) 12:03, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:47, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:47, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:48, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Note that the article was created by himself with a repeat of his autobiography at his user page. Laughably inept self-promotion from a beginner who has thus far gotten himself onto the usual self-uploaded streaming services but has not been noticed by anybody else. He claims to have won a HiPipo award in Africa, which may or may not be a valid ceremony but they do not list him as a winner regardless: [13]. If you missed the day in 2019 when he was named America's most popular musician, blame the media because they didn't announce it. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:49, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing notable. Promo article. EleOk6e3ih (talk) 16:11, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, clearly promotional too per Doomsdayer520. Non notable musician fails WP:NMUSIC. -Xclusivzik (talk) 17:02, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:49, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - vanity spam. Not a smidgen of notability Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:51, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an unsoruced article on an 18 year old rapper.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:03, 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 13:16, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eva Popiel

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

Not really an actor. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:BIO. She was the Japanese representative for L'oreal from September 2003 to August 2005. scope_creep^Talk 11:59, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:27, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:27, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:27, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:27, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:27, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Have you tried looking for sources in Japanese and Korean? It looks like there would be more notable sources in those languages. lullabying (talk) 06:05, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Lullabying: If you can fire three sources up here that look decent, then we can discuss it. At the moment there is no coverage. scope_creep^Talk 11:15, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no significant coverage. As per rules delete. Trakinwiki (talk) 16:05, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ko and ja wiki articles are even more bare bones, sadly I cannot search in those languages. Polish sources give nothing. Fails NBIO but feel free to ping me if someone can read Japanese and Korean and finds better sources. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:43, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:43, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There are multiple sources in Korean, a simple Naver search turns up tonnes of references starting from 2007. It's definitely not possible to go through each and every source given how many of them exist, but here's a few: [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28],[29]. --Ashley yoursmile! 08:07, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ashleyyoursmile: A lot of these Naver domain article look like straight up PR. I've not looked at the news papers yet, but it looks like typical PR generated to promote the band at the beginning of their career. The christiantoday article is pure pufff. That is PR. I check the rest when I get back. scope_creep^Talk 18:07, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Scope creep, yes some of these look like press releases. I haven't been able to check many of them myself, I'll see if I can find anything. Ashley yoursmile! 04:47, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ashleyyoursmile: Can you find three per PW:THREE scope_creep^Talk 09:32, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 11:37, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Ashleyyoursmile: I meant, can you find three per WP:THREE refs that are decent to prove the article is notable. scope_creep^Talk 13:33, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Scope creep, let me know what you think of [30], [31], [32], and [33]. Ashleyyoursmile! 05:47, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ref 17: In 2006, the British beauty Eva Popiel, who began to gain fame for her outstanding beauty, her fluent Korean and candid and plain speaking skills in her talk show about her life in Korea of global beauties. PR. The Korean Times describes her as a reality star who is trying to convert her brief flutter of fame into an acting career. The third one mentions her career to date, appearing on The One Show, but it is all indicative of a PR assitant becoming briefly a reality star and trying to become an actor. It is a well worn path and currently believe that she is notable. Possibly WP:TOOSOON. She is a minor D grade reality star at the moment who is non-notable. scope_creep^Talk 09:17, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Fair enough. The subject currently fails WP:ENT and appears to be WP:TOOSOON. Ashley yoursmile! 09:40, 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 keep. Geschichte (talk) 08:16, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reds Bagnell

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

Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:SIGCOV. 4meter4 (talk) 11:30, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:39, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:39, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:39, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:NCOLLATH as he was inducted into the College Football Hall of Fame and awarded the Maxwell Award. Plus tons of coverage in Newspapers.com ([34]). BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:55, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Easily meets WP:NCOLLATH/WP:GNG thru a simple historical archival search. Needs improvement, not deletion. SportingFlyer T·C 15:16, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep clearly passes WP:GNG and WP:NGRIDIRON. Nominator references WP:NFOOTBALL but that's the other kind of football and doesn't apply.--16:27, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
Keep. Easily passes WP:NCOLLATH as 1950 winner of the Maxwell Award as the best college football player in the USA and as an inductee into the CFHOF. Cbl62 (talk) 17:56, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also passes WP:GNG with extensive SIGCOV such as this, this, this, and this. Cbl62 (talk) 18:05, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: Won a significant college award. Easy pass of WP:COLLATH. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 00:10, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Easily meets WP:GNG and WP:NCOLLATH as a winner of the Maxwell Award and a member of the College Football Hall of Fame. The guideline cited by the nominator is indeed for a different sport entirely, and is completely irrelevant here. Ejgreen77 (talk) 11:03, 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 delete. Can be draftified on request at WP:REFUND. Sandstein 14:14, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Makarnalı köftender

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

Couldn't find any source about even existence of this dish. The reference doesn't contain anything about makarnalı köftender but spaghetti and meatballs. Might be a total hoax. — Pamphylian ● 💬 08:52, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. — Pamphylian ● 💬 08:52, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. — Pamphylian ● 💬 08:52, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can also not find anything. I couldn't be sure if Turkish sources exist that might have eluded me, but since the nominator is a native Turkish speaker I can assume this is not the case. Might be either a hoax or a good faith entry of a local, obscure recipe – but even in the latter case, if there are no sources available anywhere, we can't have an article about it. --LordPeterII (talk) 11:21, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify - I'd agree with the delete !vote, but for the fact that this article's creator has created dozens of other Turkish cuisine articles, most of which are well-sourced, but several of which need additional sourcing. The nom is correct that the current single source is simply a generic meat sauce recipe, not specific to this Turkish dish. Doubt it's a hoax, and several of their other articles have been draftified, and they do appear to be working on them. If not draftify, then delete. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:01, 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 merge to Netflix. Consensus is to selectively merge some of the information, not all of it. (non-admin closure) Devonian Wombat (talk) 12:11, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Technical details of Netflix

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

What is this article about and how does it meet WP:GNG? We don't have any other article on Wikipedia that opens with Technical details of. This seems like a collection of random "technical WP:TRIVIA" about Netflix. Plausibly some of this might have been split off the main article as excessive detail, per WP:SUMMARY/WP:SPLIT, but if so, it didn't find a proper home. Maybe some of it can be rescued by being merged to some other article or even back to the main Netflix article, but as a stand-alone, this weird subarticle doesn't make much sense (List of excessive details removed from Netflix article that we could not figure out a better name for...). Since the lead of this article states that " Several technical development efforts were required to provide this service.", maybe this could be rewritten into history of Netflix, but at the same time, it's implies more of a prelude... what a mess. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:22, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:22, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:22, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Doesnt merit a seperate article. Rathfelder (talk) 08:45, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I agree that some aspects (like maybe the public API or the Open Connect thing) might be worth keeping, but they could be easily included in the main Netflix article with 4-5 sentences. 80% of the article at hand are not of interest to the encyclopedia in my personal judgement. We don't need a separate article.--LordPeterII (talk) 11:29, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge to main article. Most of this stuff has no reliable secondary source to attest that it belongs on WP. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:42, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested. Right now it's little more than a WP:HOWTO. Bearian (talk) 15:49, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above, some of the technologies might be somewhat notable, independent of the business, but there is already chaos engineering for example. W Nowicki (talk) 15:14, 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 keep. There is broad agreement that the article as it currently stands is of low quality and needs (lots of) work. However, that is not a reason to delete. The suggestion to redirect can be discussed on the talk page if desired. Randykitty (talk) 14:13, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Slovio

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

The 2nd AFD was closed as 'delete'. For the 1st, two websites were given as evidence of notability, but one was created by the author of the conlang, and the other was Omniglot, which accepts summaries of writing systems from anyone and so is not a RS.

Slovio appears to be a personal project with no other following. A large number of sources can now be found, but they all seem to be based on WP, on one of the author's many websites dedicated to his language, or on each other. So we seem to have a hall of mirrors effect, where the topic is considered notable because it's found on Wikipedia.

A few years after the AFD2 deletion, the article was recreated by back-translating from the WP-de version, which had been copied from either WP-en or (as the WP-en article had been) from WP-eo. So, again, a hall of mirrors effect, this time with different wikiprojects copying off each other.

For the argument that Slovio is not a notable conlang, see Jan van Steenbergen, 'The Slovio Myth', Fiat Lingua, 1 May 2016, which postdates the two AFD's. This appears to be the most detailed source we have on the language. So as to not lose all the meta-info, which is perhaps now notable because it's been on WP so long, perhaps we should mention it in our article on zonal languages or other conlang articles, and cite Steenbergen and any other RS's / original sources there. Whether 'Slovio' should be a rd to one of those articles (which one do we choose?) or whether it should be deleted so they all come back as hits if a reader does a search on the name, I don't know. — kwami (talk) 07:15, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:26, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, or redirect to Zonal_constructed_language#Pan-Slavic_languages. Slovio had some temporary notability, as is witnessed by T. Berger's article "Potemkin im Netz: “Slovio” und die Pseudo-Panslawen", but this is clearly a thing of the past. In research, it is certainly appropriate to respond to contemporary phenomena regardless of their ephemerality, but not in an encyclopedia. And I can't escape the impression that this conlang has been only jumped on by academics experts as an object of study (and of course by non-academics in the closed conlang-universe), but not by any visible "fanbase" among its actual target group (speakers of Slavic languages). Yesterday's recentism has transformed into today's irrelevance. And I agree with kwami's observation that its current visibility is for a great part an artefact of its coverage in WP. A short mention in a conlang-related article like currently in Zonal language is fine, anything else (like the full subsection in Pan-Slavic_language) is undue and promotional. –Austronesier (talk) 09:37, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Add (partially in answer in the comment by S Marshall below): Slovio may have had some degree of temporary notability, but at no time reached the threshold of WP:SIGCOV in reliable sources to warrant a stand-alone article. And btw, the in-depth coverage in the very few secondary sources which go beyond a passing mention does in no way match the content of the article. E.g., the abovementioned article by Berger (2009) does not elaborate on details of orthography and grammar, but on the political agenda behind the creation of the conlang. Berger even does not fail to mention the instrumentalization of WP for that purpose. But fully aware of WP:NOTCLEANUP, I maintain that even this valuable information is IMO not sufficient to warrant a stand-alone article. –Austronesier (talk) 12:55, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I feel that the preceding editors display some confusion about our rules and principles.
Contrary to the nominator, the fact that Jan van Steenbergen says Slovio is a myth doesn't mean we shouldn't cover it. Where modern myths or hoaxes are covered in reliable sources, we can have articles about them: hence slenderman or chupacabra.
When Austronesier says Slovio had some temporary notability, I would point out that there is no such thing. Our longstanding rule, which has its own shortcut at WP:NTEMP, is that if a thing was ever notable, then it's notable forever. Contrary to Austronesier, I would say that historical ephemera do have a place on Wikipedia. We have many articles about things that happened in the past but don't matter now, and in my view it's right that we do.
It is true that this article has been deleted before, because it was first created by a person with a conflict of interest. Therefore, before I re-created it, I specifically sought the community's approval to do so, which was granted here.—S Marshall T/C 10:45, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- ... and in Austronesier's reply, he makes two additional points.
  First, he criticises the content of the article in that it does not reflect the sources. This is valid: the content has radically been expanded by others since I rewrote it. This is grounds to edit the article, rather than to delete it.
  Secondly, although he concedes that reliable sources exist, he contends that they're not WP:SIGCOV. Let's examine that contention in detail. This source, in the Slovakian language magazine Zivot, comprises a few hundred words; it meets Wikipedia's somewhat idiosyncratic definition of a secondary source; Slovio is one of the principal topics; Zivot has editors; and it's editorially independent of Mark Hucko. It is hardly an academic source. But such sources are routinely used for TV episodes, biographies of sportspeople, and so forth. This source, in the Slovakian language magazine Extra Plus, comprises a few hundred words; it's a secondary source by Wikipedia standards; Slovio is the principal topic; Extra Plus has editors; and it's editorially independent of Mark Hucko. This source, which is a chapter of a book by Dr Tilman Berger, Professor of Slavic Linguistics at the University of Tübingen, is proper, serious academic stuff. Its in-depth discussion of Slovio is on page 4.
  I contend that taken together, these three sources amount to significant coverage within Wikipedia's normal usage of that term.—S Marshall T/C 13:50, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It appears that the conlang has been the partial subject of this Ph.D. thesis accepted at the University of Bamberg. This thesis is written in German, so it may not add to the language's notability in the English language context, but I submit that dissertations are not written about entirely unnotable concepts. LandLing 22:44, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. To begin with, I've never said or written that Slovio is a hoax. It is as real as its grammar, its dictionary and the stuff written in it. My objective with the aforementioned article "The Slovio Myth" was quite simply to refute all the lies that circulated about it and to lay out its real scope of use. Furthermore, I have never said that Slovio isn't notable; in fact, I believe it's as notable as languages like Neo or Intal. It is true, however, that Slovio appears to owe its fame mostly to Wikipedia. The first Slovio article appeared in Esperanto in 2002, soon to be followed by translations into English and dozens of other languages - all of them based on a single and grossly unreliable primary source. By the time the first articles appeared in the press, it had already spread like a virus. Kwamikagami's comparison to a hall of mirrors is apt: journalists started writing articles that basically replicated info from Wikipedia, which in turn became evidence of Slovio's notability. It's quite possible and even probable that without Wikipedia nobody would ever even have heard about Slovio. But what's done is done, and there's no point in trying to undo it.
Anyway, my problem with the article in its current form is that it presents sources without actually using them. Instead, it goes on doing what's been done all the time: multiplying info from other Wikipedia editions without actually verifying anything. Berger, Mannewitz, Barandovská-Frank and Meyer are reputable academic sources and their coverage of Slovio is far from trivial. My own article could, in all modesty, be helpful as well. But writing an article that is not based on any of these sources is like making an egg sandwich without using eggs or bread. —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 23:17, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Which raises the possibility that Wikipedia could have an article on a topic, that notes that the topic is likely only notable because it has an article on Wikipedia. I'm not necessarily opposed to that, but think it's something that should be pondered. — kwami (talk) 23:45, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

... and that's not unknown, but my personal favourite case is Clarice Phelps, who became notable for not having an article on Wikipedia (source, source, source, source).—S Marshall T/C 00:17, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I pretty much agree with Kwamikagami here: at least in its current form, the article would best be deleted, but that doesn't preclude the possibility of a decent article that is based on serious sources instead of an article that is merely based on a single primary source. As for the conclusion that it is only notable because of a Wikipedia article, that's of course a thing we can only guess, but we can't know it for sure. I've written something about the subject before, in this paper (p. 150): "The conclusion seems justified that some languages owe at least part of their current significance to the fact that they made it into Wikipedia at a very early stage of its existence, when notability was not much of an issue yet – some of them (for example Slovio, Toki Pona and Wenedyk) barely a year after their first creation or publication. By the time that reliable sources became a requirement, Wikipedia itself had already inspired researchers and journalists to provide them." —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 22:39, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much. Given the large number of interslavic projects, perhaps we could have a comparison article. But this one, if we keep it, I think should concentrate as much on the politics of the language as on the language itself. Though, since it's now defunct, I suppose that promotion through WP is no longer much of an issue. — kwami (talk) 00:26, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep After reading van Steenbergen's fascinating article, I feel strongly that this article should be improved with reference to reliable sources (perhaps entirely rewritten), not deleted. Gildir (talk) 14:03, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the compliment! The question is which solution is better: deleting the article in its current form and see if someone steps up to write a better one, or keep it and just hope for someone to improve it. The problem with the latter solution is that it's probably not going to work. It happens all the time: an article is bad, but the subject is sufficiently notable, so we keep it for improvement, and after five years it's submitted for deletion once again since nobody cares to improve it. Besides, in its current state, there's really not much worth preserving: the alphabet and grammar sections are not compliant with the official grammar, full of errors and totally unreferenced. I also agree with Kwamikagami that the political aspect should be properly covered as well. My suggestion would be to draftify the article. If there's anyone willing to commit to the task of improving the article, it's mission accomplished, if not, it will be deleted automatically after some time. How 'bout that? —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 17:17, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't we just revert to one of the less crufty revisions?—S Marshall T/C 11:52, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IMO that wouldn't solve any of the problems put forward by the nominator. —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 16:24, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we're pretty far away from meeting the criteria for a "draftify" outcome at AfD, which require (a) that the article is recently-created and (b) that it's not used as a backdoor route to deletion. You could apply a tag.—S Marshall T/C 17:36, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, the page you quote says that draftifying "should generally be done only for newly created articles (...) or as the result of a deletion discussion". The idea is, obviously, to give people time to improve the article while taking the current text as a starting point. The difference is that if nobody takes up the task, it will be deleted automatically after a while, but the purpose is to improve it and not to delete it. In my opinion there's nothing unreasonable about that. After all, why would anybody write an article about something without reading even a single source about it? In its current form, the article is clearly unacceptable. It's just a translation from an equally unsourced article in another language edition. Even Interslavic language and Pan-Slavic language contain more valuable information about Slovio than the article itself. —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 22:32, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If your objective is to improve it, you'd be welcome to do so in the mainspace. Draftification is a way to make someone else improve it (on pain of deletion). It's not how we normally do things with established articles.—S Marshall T/C 09:20, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Giving my opinion doesn't make me responsible for making the necessary improvements, especially since it would be strange to use my own work as a source. Tagging is not a solution either: there are already three tags that have been here for a very long time, and until now nobody could be bothered to do anything about them. Deletion would be the logical consequence of that fact, but since there seem to be people who care about this article, I'd rather give them some extra time to work on it. Hence my suggestion. —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 19:32, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If we decide to keep, and no-one is willing to rework the article, then I plan on merging it into Pan-Slavic language, where it already has a section, and adding a quick summary of the sources mentioned here. It could always be recreated if someone wants to do the work. (The article Interslavic language, BTW, currently covers a great deal of nicely fleshed out background material that IMO would be better placed in 'Pan-Slavic', with 'Interslavic' concentrating on the modern project dating from ca 2006.) — kwami (talk) 00:32, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pan-Slavic language is in a terrible state, to be fair, and its section on Slovio is also functionally unreferenced. I could't find Interslavic language when I looked right now -- seems like User:Anthony Appleyard is doing something with it.—S Marshall T/C 11:27, 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 already draftified?. I will delete cross-namespace redirect. Daniel (talk) 23:55, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alfred K. Flowers Jr.

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Assyrtiko (talk) 06:52, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Assyrtiko (talk) 06:52, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Assyrtiko (talk) 06:52, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete lacks SIGCOV in multiple RS to meet WP:GNG. WP:NOTINHERITED with respect to his father. Mztourist (talk) 12:04, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the article now appears to be in draft space? Zawed (talk) 10:05, 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. Geschichte (talk) 19:00, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Military Ordinariate of Lithuania

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

Minor catholic organization serving the Lithuanian military, we currently have no in-depth independent coverage in reliable sources and I have been unable to find any online. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 06:26, 23 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 23. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:51, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:13, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:13, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it is not an organization but an "administrative" subdivision of the Catholic church. The number of interwiki links is a very good indication that the subject is indeed notable. Renata (talk) 18:17, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Renata3: those links appear to only be due to its inclusion in navboxes, they aren’t actual links from the bodies of those articles. Also a stand alone administrative subdivision is an organization, there is no independence inherent in the definition. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:51, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean "what links here" but 9 articles in other language Wikipedias. Renata (talk) 18:58, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You mean the cut and pasted version of this article which use the same self-published or non-independent sources? If you can pull good coverage from those articles it would save us a lot of time. Note that the ubiquitously used Catholic-Hierarchy.org is a non-reliable self published source. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:00, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there are no reliable sources giving in depth coverage of this organization. The fact that it is a part of the Catholic Church does not mean it itself is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:42, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Updated and expanded with plenty of references. Horse Eye's Back and John Pack Lambert, please consider withdrawing your !votes. Renata (talk) 02:10, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Renata3! You’ve done an absolutely fabulous job of cobbling together sources in multiple languages to get it just over the WP:GNG bar! That is truly some impressive work and I no longer see a notability objection here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:20, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A branch of a national military and effectively a diocese of a major religious denomination. These are both generally considered to be notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:43, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:44, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per WP:HEY because since nomination the article has been significantly improved using reliable sources coverage that shows a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:04, 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 keep. Geschichte (talk) 18:58, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

William C. Steere, Jr.

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

Does not meet WP:NBIO- notability is largely inherited from Pfizer. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:43, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:48, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree it's borderline, but stuff like this book do point to notability - "Whatever questions surrounded the paternity of Viagra, the marketable product was undoubtedly the offspring of William C. Steere, Jr." Funnily enough, apparently he believed that size mattered. He DOES seem to have been most notable in that intersection between the analogue and digital world around 1995/6, which may not help his case but Bloomberg profiles him here and the pieces in the article (The Day, in particular, is I think a decent source) push him over the old WP:GNG line... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:10, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:54, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:56, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - wildly successful business person who developed multiple blockbuster drugs, which changed big pharma. Bearian (talk) 15:51, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Just enough significant coverage and sourcing for notability.Jackattack1597 (talk) 10:19, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 04:56, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Promise (2014 film)

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

Non-notable film; could not find a listing for the film on IMDb or any other site (also very hard to find information when there was a film with the same title made a year prior) wizzito | say hello! 04:05, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. wizzito | say hello! 04:05, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. wizzito | say hello! 04:05, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. wizzito | say hello! 04:05, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, citations fail NFILM. Only claim to notability appears to be film festival screenings and winning two seemingly non-notable awards, one of which was a third-place tie alongside supposedly hundreds (?) of other films. Failed a WP:BEFORE as well. Anonymous 7481 (talk) 16:20, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:NFILM. Kolma8 (talk) 08:07, 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 speedy keep per WP:SK#1. The nomination is only proposing a merge. I suggest adding merge templates to the articles denoted and starting a discussion on a talk page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:02, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

George Floyd protests in San Luis Obispo County, California

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

This article was initially created to accommodate for a WP:BLP1E violation of an article, Arrest of Tianna Arata. The content for that article was eventually removed due to the violation, leaving this article's purpose totally superfluous. There are very few examples that this article can name in support of its own topic now. I recommend merging this article back where it originally came from, George Floyd protests in California. Love of Corey (talk) 03:41, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:00, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:00, 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 Adventures of Sonic the Hedgehog#Special. ✗plicit 04:59, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sonic Christmas Blast

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

Clearly a non-notable TV special from 1996. I am not seeing any sign of reviews or any other types of WP:SIGCOV. The article was merged and redirected back in 2008, but it has since been recreated. Scorpions13256 (talk) 03:18, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Scorpions13256 (talk) 03:18, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Scorpions13256 (talk) 03:18, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/merge to Adventures of Sonic the Hedgehog. I did a google search, and found coverage in Game Informer and the book A Worldwide Encyclopedia of Christmas, Hanukkah, Kwanzaa and New Year's Cartoons on Television and Film, but that seems to be about it in terms of significant RS coverage. I searched on Archive.org as well, but only found TV schedules there.--Alexandra^IDV 04:16, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - restore what was previously there. Non-notable tv special. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:56, 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. This has already been relisted twice, so I am closing this, but the "debate" suffered from a lack of participation, so no prejudice to a speedy re-nomination. I add that if this had been tagged for G11 I would likely have deleted it. Randykitty (talk) 13:45, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Scott (businessperson)

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

Subject does not appear to meet our notability guidelines and article is entirely promotional (and created by the subject) ElKevbo (talk) 21:43, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:59, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:59, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, if you look at the talk page for the article, you will see that it was looked at by several editors and that the page was revised in accordance with their recommendations and that the connections were disclosed in accordance with Wikipedia policy. It was then accepted by the editors.--Sjscott80 (talk) 07:35, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:45, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Samuel Scott is well-known in the tech and marketing area and published many articles concerning these topics (writing books isn't very popular in this field). Btw, Sjscott80 I think you mean "history" and not "talk page". Tec Tom (talk) 15:36, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:05, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SIGCOV and WP:AUTOBIO. Cites to The Drum and AdWeek? Bearian (talk) 15:53, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He looks like a subject-matter expert to me. WP:SNG could apply. His expertise appears to be in the area of digital advertising fraud. Because of his expertise, he appears to get cited or interviewed for articles on digital advertising fraud relatively often. The places that write about digital advertising fraud are themselves "tech niche" publications. The fact that apparently an involved/COI editor wrote the article is unfortunate and alienating, but doesn't really tell us whether the individual is or isn't notable. Novellasyes (talk) 18:31, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 02:44, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rajan Raheja Group (conglomerate)

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

Unambiguous advertisement of the group companies. Re-creation by the same user without fixing the issues. Creator is also blocked previously. Fails WP:NCOMPANY. Speedy delete and block the creator for promotion on Wikipedia. GermanKity (talk) 02:00, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 02:00, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 02:00, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Support~~ Delete per WP:NCOMPANY. Hydrogenation (talk) 02:11, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hydrogenation, Your comment is confusing, Kindly make the clear statement like you want to "Delete", "Keep" or "Comment". GermanKity (talk) 03:03, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

whoops Hydrogenation (talk) 03:08, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as WP:G11. Article is completely unsourced and most likely created for promotion.--Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 06:48, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced, promotional, likely WP:G5 candidate (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vallabharebel). Spike 'em (talk) 12:55, 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 keep. Geschichte (talk) 08:14, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Imaginary Friend (film)

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

Non-notable film, does not have significant coverage, does not meet WP:NF or WP:GNG BOVINEBOY2008 01:46, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 05:04, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep One review cited in article, and another at Radio Times [[35]] Donaldd23 (talk) 11:31, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:57, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:57, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 01:59, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Donaldd23 above. I would also like to note that AFD is not clean-up, and this article can be improved, all it needs is for someone bold enough to do so. Sean Stephens (talk) 03:20, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but I must say this is narrow. Two reviews are the minimum set by WP:NF, and I'd hardly call that Radio Times one a "full-length review". However, I have (via imdb) also found this review by The Movie Scene, which brings the count to two and a half reviews. Acceptable, imo. --LordPeterII (talk) 18:59, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
KeepThere are IMDB article for the Movie and 53% of the AUDIENCE SCORE on the Rotten Tomato, so what the measurement for the Non-notablity? I think the article has its minimum standard in order to keep Thrago (talk) 02:48, 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 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 02:42, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Massachusetts Albanian American Society

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

Fails WP:ORG. Lots of references, but many of them don't discuss the subject at all, while others provide only passing mentions in local or special-interest sources. A WP:BEFORE search doesn't find anything of substance. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:10, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:10, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:10, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:10, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:46, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 01:56, 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) Drill it (talk) 11:36, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bidzina Kulumbegov

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

I don’t read Georgian but this BLP is sourced to some seriously dodgy looking sites. Nothing here looks like solid in depth coverage in RIS. Mccapra (talk) 21:38, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 21:38, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 21:38, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 21:38, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Because of he is famous in Georgia, and Georgian Biographical Dictionary is serious source :) I can also say this about vidal.ge it is site of medicine and there are biographies of doctors, also some news, clinics and etc. About references, they are full ready :)----ჯეო4WIKI^{Message Me}_{Contributions} 08:19, 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) 21:40, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Via google I could find a lot about him. Although I don't read Georgian, he seems to be famous in Georgia, especially now because of COVID. I could even find some more English sources: [36], [37] [38] Tec Tom (talk) 15:51, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I guess the question is whether these amount to in-depth coverage. Mccapra (talk) 16:43, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 01:56, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Significant coverage in Georgian media.Jackattack1597 (talk) 10:14, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 02:40, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yerishi (brand)

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

Blatant advertisement of a company. Unable to find significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails GNG/WP:NCORP. GermanKity (talk) 10:42, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 10:42, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 10:42, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:47, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:47, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:44, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Kleinpecan (talk) 03:23, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 01:50, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Could also not find many sources, and moreover two that are used in the article and the single other one that I found which is not written in Armenian seem to all be copyvios of each other, or at least closely related. Using google translate, compare the first paragraph of this source, and this one and that one: All start with some variant of "Armenians all over the world are always able to stand out in different spheres, fashion is no exception." Apart from the sourcing/notability issue, the article is also in a terrible state and reads like a (bad) advertisement. Like "Yerishi continues its triumphal march of success." – that's not encyclopedic style by a long shot. --LordPeterII (talk) 10:28, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Lord Peter has hit the nail on the head Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:43, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:G11 - upon actually looking at the article, there is nothing encyclopedic to salvage. This is one of the most blatant advertisements I've seen aside from those attempts at "available for $49.99 at foo.biz". Every single paragraph, every single sentence has a direct purpose in promoting the product, with the possible singular exception of "The founder and director of the brand is Irina Yeritsyan.". I would delete it myself right now if it weren't for this ongoing discussion. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:24, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also add that there is no salvagable version in history to revert to. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:10, 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 redirect to Green Acres#Mr. (Eustace) Haney. Anything worth merging is still available from the history. Randykitty (talk) 13:34, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Haney

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

Following my PROD over notability concerns, this was userfied for half a year, and more references have been added ([39]). Unfortunately, I feel that GNG is still a problem. The new article now sports two sentences that are not a simple plots summary: "The character is used as a euphemism for a swindling salesman or conman." and "Buttram was inspired to make the character after meeting Col. Tom Parker, Elvis's manager, on the set of the movie Roustabout a year before the series" but this is not much (and the first sentence is confusing, to me at least, and ORish - what source states this? The most reliable one here is a passing mention describing him as a "con man"), and the references in general mention the character only briefly (WP:SIGCOV problem). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:02, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:02, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Green Acres#Mr. (Eustace) Haney, where the character is already included. Despite the appearance in the current article of having a number of sources, very few of these are from reliable sources - there's pieces of fiction, a crossword puzzle, several blogs, etc. The one or two sources that could actually qualify as reliable have pretty much no coverage of the character, simply mentioning he was a character on the show. What little coverage exists that isn't just plot summaries of episodes he appeared in is certainly not enough to warrant a WP:SPLIT from the main article on the series, where the character is already covered. Rorshacma (talk) 23:59, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:24, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Green Acres#Mr. (Eustace) Haney.4meter4 (talk) 01:33, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears in numerous references works such as Television Character and Story Facts; Shooting Stars of the Small Screen; Encyclopedia of Television Shows, 1925 Through 2007: F-L; &c. It seems that the character still has some currency in contemporary political debate and so our readership should be kept well-informed. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:42, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you provide a quotation that illustrates that the sources you mention contain WP:SIGCOV of this character? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:52, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 02:39, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sara A. Stires

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

struggling to see GNG as being met. Award is not sufficient to meet ANYBIO and the sources in the article largely do not offer significant coverage and only mention the subject in passing or don't establish her as notable outside of having served in the military and received a relatively minor award (when considering notability). Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 00:46, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:05, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:05, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:05, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:05, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks SIGCOV in multiple RS to meet WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 12:07, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't in my view meet GNG. Intothat darkness 14:31, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
comment significant coverage in "Celebrating Navy Women: Perseverance & Achievements"; military times; billings times. = meets GNG --Emailmope (talk) 00:34, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Two sentences in a U.S. Navy publication is not significant coverage. Mztourist (talk) 08:53, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete two sentences no where is significant coverage, especially when we are dealing with a naval publication talking about people who were in the navy, so that the indepedence of the publication is in question. Plus GNG requires multiple significant sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:55, 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 delete. ✗plicit 02:38, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Robert L. Humphrey

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

Non-notable author and soldier. BEFORE searches do not return anything close to significant coverage. DocFreeman24 (talk) 00:43, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. DocFreeman24 (talk) 00:43, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. DocFreeman24 (talk) 00:43, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks SIGCOV in multiple RS to meet WP:GNG. Fails WP:AUTHOR also. Mztourist (talk) 03:10, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:06, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable and lacks independent RS coverage. Article seems somewhat promotional/puffery. Zawed (talk) 10:08, 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 delete. ✗plicit 02:38, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2N Telekomunikace

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

This is almost entirely a commercial web page. Almost all the references arefrom their own site. DGG ( talk ) 00:26, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:06, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:06, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:07, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree the article reads like a publicity statement, suitable for their own website but not Wikipedia. Most of it is incidentally sourced to their own web site(s), and I could only identify these two sources as potentially acceptable: Businesswire on acquisition Czech site on acquisition – interestingly, the article does not mention the main point of these news, that the company changed ownership in 2017. 2N is also mentioned in passing here, but I don't think that counts as significant coverage. With the article in a bad shape and the company imo failing WP:CORP, I vote delete. --LordPeterII (talk) 10:04, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per LordPeterII. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 10:18, 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.

Withdrawn. I still don't think there is any evidence is sustained or significant coverage for the subject, but it is clear that the AFD was grounded improperly, so I've withdrawn. (non-admin closure) — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 13:51, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lucario

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

From WP:VG/CONTENT: "Avoid detailed coverage of in-game elements such as items, levels, or setting. If multiple reliable sources describe a game element's importance to a game or series, this can be summarized at the relevant parent article, in context. A separate article for a game element is typically warranted if multiple sources establish its importance outside the game itself, describing its influence on the game industry, history, or a genre."

This isn't the case for Lucario. Although there is an impressive number of references, they are largely primary sources to Pokédex entries and comics. Of the extant sourcing, none support the subject's significance to the video game industry, or even to the Pokémon franchise. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 00:01, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 00:01, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Lucario is practically the franchise's third mascot after Pikachu and Charizard. It's also a playable character in Super Smash Bros., which is the equivalent of being knighted for a video game character. Sourcing an article about a Pokemon is nearly impossible because Google just gives fandom-related websites, so the sources are probably never going to be satisfactory. But in terms of objective notability, it's not really arguable. Mlb96 (talk) 04:00, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I really strongly disagree. Pokémon is extremely well-represented in Super Smash Bros.; ten have featured as playable fighters. It's difficult to find good sustained coverage of Lucario because Lucario is not important to the industry, Pokémon history, or to the genre. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 04:17, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Lucario is a character, not "items, levels, or setting". There is no parent article since this is a recurring character throughout the franchise. The reception section is good, a character doesn't need to be "important to the world" to be notable. enjoyer -- talk 04:23, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The MOS guidelines outlined under WP:VG/CONTENT contains advice from an editorial perspective. WP:VG/CONTENT is not the relevant notability guideline to support a reasons for deletion, but WP:GNG. If there is an excessive amount of in-game elements within the article, then all by means be bold and trim it per WP:VG/CONTENT. Otherwise, having an excessive amount of in-universe fluff/prose is not a ground for deletion per Wikipedia's deletion policy unless the consensus here determines that there is no significant coverage as required WP:GNG. Haleth (talk) 08:36, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per reasons above. 49.149.124.152 (talk) 08:49, 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) Jackattack1597 (talk) 10:11, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ruth Farchi

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

Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG, and does not meet WP:NACTOR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:00, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:00, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. SportsOlympic (talk) 07:44, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. SportsOlympic (talk) 07:44, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. SportsOlympic (talk) 07:44, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Meeting GNG, enough indepenndent reliable sources: She had an enormous amount of coverage after her death just 5 random examples: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Also before her death she had coverage, a nice example in-dept interview here. She started her career in 1975, so there are many offline sources. She is described in the encyclopedia biografiA – Lexikon österreichischer Frauen [de] (Book 1: A–H on page 779) and she is decribed in the book "Neuland: Israelische Künstler österreichischer Herkunft". And apart from GNG I think she also meets NACTOR, by having played in over 60 stage playes and films and television series. SportsOlympic (talk) 07:35, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - inclusion in Ilse Korotin (Hrsg.): biografia. Lexikon österreichischer Frauen. Band 1: A–H. Böhlau, Wien/Köln/Weimar 2016, ISBN 978-3-205-79590-2, S. 779 seems to indicate that this passes WP:ANYBIO no. 3. Furius (talk) 17:29, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:56, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She has lots of refs, but most of them are in Hebrew. Also, we need to search for her under the spelling Ruth Farhi, which is probably the more common spelling of her name in English. See this. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:31, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nomination is ill formed. It ignores several significant sources in English plus the many in Hebrew. Victuallers (talk) 08:01, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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