Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 June 18

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. I don't see any consensus to delete, although not a 100% consensus for keep either. Whether or not to drafity is an editorial decision that can be made outside of AfD. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:09, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reyhaneh Parsa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

I have noticed that this article has only Persian citations, without any English reference/website/press, hence, while this may possibly be notable in Persian Wikipedia, I believe the subject is not notable in English Wikipedia. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Therefore, I propose this article to be deleted. Aviator006 (talk) 22:08, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Aviator006 (talk) 22:08, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Aviator006 (talk) 22:08, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Aviator006 (talk) 22:08, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. See WP:NONENG. We don't require that sources be in English. Is there another deletion rationale? pburka (talk) 22:15, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  NB: the nominator added the GNG and NACTOR rationales while I was commenting. pburka (talk) 22:18, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:19, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify. There are a lot of Persian language journalistic sources here (Keyhan, ISNA, etc), so I have little doubt that the subject is notable under GNG, and ought to have an article. But at the moment, the account of what has happened in the "Controversy" section is totally incomprehensible word salad. Attention is needed from an Iranian speaker to resolve this. Furius (talk) 18:01, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- no valid deletion rationale given. Sources are not required to be in English. matt91486 (talk) 21:16, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, non-English source is allowed, but it does not constitute the entire article to be from foreign sources. Considering that there are zero English source (i.e. no English media coverage whatsoever), does the subject belongs to the English version of Wikipedia? I did a quick google search on the subject before nomination and there is no articles or news on the subject. Aviator006 (talk) 11:29, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If a person is notable in any language then they ought to have a page on English Wikipedia. Our notability guidelines aren't intended to exclude any languages, cultures, or nations. pburka (talk) 13:00, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, there is absolutely nothing in wikipedia policy that says a certain amount of English language coverage needs to be achieved. matt91486 (talk) 16:14, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Persians also read English Wikipedia. There is no Wiki policy I know of that says an article cannot exist with sources in a foreign language. Peter303x (talk) 03:18, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There is no Wiki policy I know of that says an article cannot exist with sources in a foreign language. There seems to be major coverage on her in Persian publications and she has also won an award. She may not be a notable figure outside her own country, but it appears that she is in Iran. Peter303x (talk) 03:20, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify. While it passes GNG, the article is not yet ready for mainspace. It needs copy editing and some hand holding in development by input from experienced editors.4meter4 (talk) 05:32, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify, although the article's subject may not meet WP:NACTOR. Miniapolis 20:44, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify or delete. While references need not be in English, WP:NONENG the issue here is that the subject does not meet WP:NACTOR Looking at the English translation of the other language article it is clear the subject has NOT had "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." subject has had minor roles with minor awards. I only suggest draftify, as there may be unrecorded roles the make the subject notable. Jeepday (talk) 17:25, 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 no consensus with no prejudice against speedy renomination. Once it is decided who the article subject actually is, a future discussion might be better able to determine whether we should have that article. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:30, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ramzi Najjar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

other than his death, this Najjar (and it's previous iterations) are not notable and have received no meaningful coverage. Just a guy doing his job that died, nothing more. BEACHIDICAE🌊 22:43, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:23, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:23, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:47, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:47, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Run-of-the-mill author. A draft should speak for itself as to how the subject is notable. This article does not establish general notability or author notability. I have not checked the references because that is not necessary because the draft as written does not speak for itself. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:06, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Robert McClenon Can you please review the sources I have added after this nomination? This person is different from draft one as you've noted below. There are many more sources in Arabic language (see his Arabic Wikipedia page). Thanks. Störm (talk) 10:28, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - There are two run-of-the-mill authors with the same name, one living. See also Draft:Ramzi Najjar. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:06, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - This draft does not speak for itself in terms of establishing notability. There is a myth in Wikipedia that adding references is the key to acceptance of a draft. References are a necessary but not a sufficient condition. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:41, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Most of the references are reports of his death. Others are interviews or passing mentions.

Delete - please delete page. Some Storm went in and changed the details from my name to another Ramzi Najjar who is deceased. 178.135.8.46 (talk) 08:45, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Robert McClenon (talk) 04:01, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - please delete page. Some Storm went in and changed the details from my name to another Ramzi Najjar who is deceased. 178.135.8.46 (talk) 08:47, 1 June 2021 (UTC) struck as an obvious duplicate of the entry made by 178.135.8.46 Meters (talk) 06:49, 2 June 2021 (UTC) [reply]

• Keep - easily passes WP:GNG. He was a notable figure in Arab world. With a simple search I found some additional sources [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. Thanks. Störm (talk) 15:08, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yet again, you've missed the point. These are all 1E. He died. There's no coverage before his death. BEACHIDICAE🌊 15:14, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't done WP:BEFORE and yet claiming there is no coverage before his death? I have no words for this. Störm (talk) 15:31, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Obituaries are not sufficient to establish WP:BIO notability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:08, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I don't think BLP1E applies. It would apply if the death notices were because of some unusual way to die, but the obituaries instead detail a long and varied business and media career, which clearly surpasses 1E. I haven't looked closely at all the sources, because I have monolingual issues, but what I can see seems to be obituaries run by organizations to which he contributed, (a school, a magazine), so I'm not sure they're really independent. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:27, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment. Many are independent as summarized by User:Robert McClenon above. Störm (talk) 17:06, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I should change my assessment to Maybe Independent, but it doesn't matter because they are not significant. Many of them are not even obituaries, but only death reports. And he died the same number of times that most of us will eventually die. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:19, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - some interviews of Najjar - 02/04/2012 interview on MTV Lebanon, 03/04/12 radio interview, 30/05/12 interview on Al Arabiya, 11/04/12 radio interview, April 2012 interview on Al Yawm TV, a tribute to Najjar services by Voice of Lebanon, another tribute by MTV, funeral and much more coverage is available here. @Robert McClenon:, @Ohnoitsjamie: if they want to change their vote. Thanks. Störm (talk) 17:30, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• --Please delete as the person on the page is not Ramzi Najjar bur rather known as Ramsay Najjar or Ramzi Al-Najjar--
• --Please rename the page to Ramsay Najjar or Ramzi Al-Najjar--
• --Please note that Storm took over my page deleted my information as Ramzi Najjar Author and used it for Ramsay G. Najjar-- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.135.11.120 (talk) 19:06, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a reason for delete, that's a reason for rename - if you can back this claim with reliable sources. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:44, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• All references are in the name of Ramsay Najjar or Ramzi Al-Najjar even in Arabic which is different from the page name Ramzi Najjar https://ramsaynajjar.com/en/home/
• Keep It passes WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Notable. --Wildhorse3 (talk) 19:07, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - found another, Ramsay Najjar, les mots pour arme (in French) published in L'Orient-Le Jour. Thanks. Störm (talk) 09:36, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- Appreciate if you can do something as user Störm hijacked my page Ramzi Najjar and changed all information to a dead guy called Ramsay Najjar who is a different person obviously since the spelling of the name is not Ramzi Najjar. Now my knowledge panel is showing I am dead.
• Keep Meets WP:GNG. Also, the delete vote directly above me appears to be from the same person as an earlier delete vote from 178.135.8.46Jackattack1597 (talk) 22:30, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV. Obituaries do count towards significant coverage when they are unpaid, and widely reported in multiple media outlets beyond mere local news coverage. In this case the obituaries are detailed, in multiple languages, and reaching a large multi-national audience. All of this indicates significant coverage. These kinds of obituary announcement in media are reserved for notable people and are not routine. The typical business executive does not get this level of coverage when they die. Only significant individuals get this level of media coverage.4meter4 (talk) 13:27, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• To the IP user who has concerns of sourcing issues: If you're the article subject, you can contact Wikipedia through OTRS and verify your identity. Then an OTRS agent can post a verified claim from the article subject here, and that will be more effective. See Wikipedia:Contact us. For this article: a current ANI shows ongoing concerns with this article and I agree a closer look is necessary. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:05, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment to User:Missvain, User:Peter303x, and anyone else: There appear to be two run-of-the-mill authors with the same name, one of whom is living, and one of whom is recently deceased. This AFD is about the deceased person, and most of the references are passing mentions of the death of the person. There is also a draft about the living person, which I have also declined. It appears that User:Praxidicae agrees with me that neither person is biographically notable. If both people were notable, disambiguation would be necessary. It appears that there is continuing confusion due to the two persons with the same name. I hope that the confusion is innocent and not being stirred up on purpose. The closer will need to verify that editors taking part in this AFD understand that there are two people with the same name. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:15, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes I realized what is going on and that there are 2 people with the same name, but as it is right now, there are 4 KEEP votes here, so whether you or User:Praxidicae think it should be deleted, that just means we don't have consensus yet. Peter303x (talk) 08:58, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment to User:Peter303x - Yes, and User:Ohnoitsjamie also says to Delete. I agree that there isn't consensus at this point and probably won't be. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:20, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:56, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Emma Jonnz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

No evidence of notability per WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. I am unable to find significant discussion of the subject in multiple reliable sources. ... discospinster _talk 23:52, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I've removed the junk sources again. Fake "news" blogs that are paid placement sinks are not WP:RS. Searches for additional material turn up nothing but the same SEO palp. Kuru (talk) 22:03, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:GNG Jeepday (talk) 17:26, 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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:31, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vulpix and Ninetales (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable Pokemon with no real-world notability. I redirected this to List of generation I Pokémon, as it is similar to other Pokemon AfDs (here here here), but a user objected to my redirect. Natg 19 (talk) 23:35, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 23:35, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 23:35, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 23:35, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect per nominator. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 03:38, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, Delete, as an unlikely search term. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 22:19, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect Delete Aside from passing mentions on the reception section, multiple pokemon in one article might be probably not enough. 49.149.124.152 (talk) 05:07, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect. Some elements of the reception and such could be preserved in the notes column of that list. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:14, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect (The individual Pokemon terms, delete the combined name) - Not notable at all for the purposes of Wikipedia._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 12:46, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect yet another Pokémon where the sources present don't give the coverage required. How many of these are there? Link20XX (talk) 14:08, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's more crap articles, such as Chikorita, Giratina, Arceus, Absol and possibly also Entei and Lapras.49.149.124.152 (talk) 22:23, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • After doing some more looking, Arceus, Xerneas and Yveltal, and Greninja also aren't looking good. Link20XX (talk) 02:37, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think Greninja is good (I also expanded now), since it was discussed before when the article was still at draft and resulted as keep, and it is a single Pokemon in the article that got plenty of reception. Have a good day. 49.149.124.152 (talk) 04:43, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a catgeory of these Pokemon "character" articles here (unsure if there are others that aren't added to the category): Category:Pokémon species; and they are in this template as well, Template:Pokémon directory. Natg 19 (talk) 18:45, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's probably all of them now in the category, Chikorita is one of the worst. 49.149.124.152 (talk) 22:03, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as per nom. Zero real world notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:14, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect since this has not received significant coverage from third-party, reliable sources. I am somewhat surprised as I thought there would be more coverage out there on this one. I think a redirect would be far more beneficial to readers than an outright deletion. Aoba47 (talk) 01:29, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Changing my vote to delete and have Vulpix and Ninetales be redirects. I agree that it is better to have them be separate redirects as that would be more beneficial to the readers. Aoba47 (talk) 16:39, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The name is a union of two different entities; as such, reading WP:RPURPOSE it doesn't appear to meet any of these listed purposes and so deletion is more appropriate. However, the redirects at Vulpix and Ninetales should be changed away from this and towards an extant page. BilledMammal (talk) 03:19, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and make the two individual Pokemon names redirects, per nom._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 05:09, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:57, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jose V. Blanco (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Poorly sourced article on a painter. Similar to Jan P. Blanco, of the same family. A search turned up a few sources, but not enough for GNG. --- Possibly ☎ 23:27, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. --- Possibly ☎ 23:27, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. --- Possibly ☎ 23:27, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. --- Possibly ☎ 23:27, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I did find a few mentions of him here or there, but none of them were independent of the subject. An art gallery talking of their featured artists does not a notable person make. Helen (let’s talk) 02:42, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Concur with HelenDegenerate I find a few minor mentions, nothing the supports WP:GNG. Jeepday (talk) 17:30, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:11, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Redwood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non notable small time indie wrestler. Sources provided are all listings of match results or small passing mentions without sufficient detail to indicate notability. ♟♙ (talk) 23:26, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. No significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 17:58, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete As it stands the sources are not reliable or independent and lack significant coverage. However, I have not searched so it is possible sufficient sources exist to indicate that this is a notable topic. —FORMALDUDE ^(talk) 01:33, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of generation I Pokémon. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:34, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Non-notable Pokemon with no real-world notability. I redirected this to List of generation I Pokémon, as it is similar to other Pokemon AfDs, but a user objected to my redirect. Natg 19 (talk) 22:46, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 22:46, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 22:46, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 22:46, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect. There are some passing mentions, usually of weak reliability (and worse), but no WP:SIGCOV. I will note that the target list has a note column which can absorb whatever elements of the current reception anyone thinks are notable and reliable. We could add something from [7] but it's a pre-print so I am not sure it meets WP:MEDRS yet? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:12, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Well-sourced article about one of the most well-known monsters in the franchise. Out of the few Pokemon which are notable enough to have standalone articles, Gengar is definitely one of them. Mlb96 (talk) 08:06, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect Per valid reason. 49.149.124.152 (talk) 09:08, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect The reception section is largely based on snippets from unrelated articles and listicles. Nothing strikes me as demonstrating its notability. The article is largely Bulbapedia caliber._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 12:28, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect Non notable as a standalone subject Dexxtrall (talk) 13:51, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect all the sources in the article are really listicles and/or don't give the necessary depth of coverage. As for the Keep !votes above, the first is simply WP:ITSNOTABLE and the IP did provide several sources, though a lot of them also have issues with depth of coverage. Link20XX (talk) 14:04, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Haunter and Gastly to create Gastly, Haunter, and Gengar - Honestly, I do not see why this was not done sooner. (Oinkers42) (talk) 15:06, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Given that those others don't seem notable either, merging them will not somehow make it notable. I instead suggest that someone nominate those for deletion as well._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 15:52, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of generation I Pokémon as a useful search term. Refbombed article does not have sources with significant coverage, just a collection of passing mentions. czar 21:16, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of generation I Pokémon as I do not see enough evidence of significant coverage from third-party, reliable sources. This is a viable search term and I believe there is limited coverage about this so I think a redirect would be better than an outright deletion. It's a shame though as it is one of my favorite Pokemon. Aoba47 (talk) 01:25, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect, though without prejudice against recreating if enough can be done to improve it. It's not the weakest of Pokémon articles. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 22:24, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Week keep, based on the extent of the sourcing, and without doing a WP:BEFORE, I am not convinced that this article strictly fails WP:GNG as alleged by the nominator and other editors. In any event, this should have been the subject of a merge discussion as opposed to a deletion discussion since a few editors have proposed that a large swath of the content may in fact be salvageable. Haleth (talk) 08:40, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, if this AFD goes for delete, can we please keep File:Beta-gengar-nidorino.jpg and move it to Pokémon_Red_and_Blue#Development? (Oinkers42) (talk) 13:42, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sounds fine to me. Link20XX (talk) 20:07, 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. ✗plicit 07:40, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hidden Valley, Idaho (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

THis was created by an IP outside the usual GNIS stub process, and the original text began, "Hidden Valley is an area east of Dietrich idaho and west of Paul Idaho that has large farms. It is not a town and most people have a postal route from paul Idaho." The article lacks coordinates; GNIS does list several Hidden Valleys in the state, of which none is in Lincoln County. From what I can tell in other sources, Hidden Valley in this county appears to be a strip of farmland running south from highway 24; there's even a Hidden Valley Organic Dairy in the midst of it. I don't see this meeting WP:GEOLAND; I'm not convinced yet that it is a notable locale, in that while I'm finding references to it as a place, I haven't found one talking about it per se; my assessment of its extent is based on looking at GMaps, not from a description. Mangoe (talk) 21:33, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:38, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:54, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:V. I can't verify it in Google books nor newspapers. Bearian (talk) 18:00, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:43, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aamir Qureshi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

BLP entirely sourced to unreliable social media and IMDb. Needs draftifying but there’s a draft in existence. Mccapra (talk) 14:58, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 14:58, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 14:58, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, I spent about an hour to find independent, reliable, Secondary sources with significant coverage to cite on Aamir Qureshi, but found nothing except trivial coverage. It clearly fails General Notability. But if we keep in mind that WP:GNGACTOR and his significant roles in Notable films and dramas, this article will easily pass 1st point of WP:ENTERTAINER. Considering his significant roles in Notable films and dramas, this article should be kept. Thank you. Abdulhaseebatd (talk) 12:55, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete He fails GNG, which takes precedent over the possible meet of ENT.--🌀Locomotive207-talk🌀 00:12, 20 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} 23:11, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Konthoujam Lairembi gi Khubam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

A sacred grove which is not notable. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:53, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:53, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:53, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no references about this grove. Alternately, redirect to Manipuri mythology. Bearian (talk) 18:03, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:14, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Quli Mirza (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

it fails WP:GNG and has lack of reliable sources and also fails WP:NACTOR. Also it was created by an blocked user. Preetykaur761 (talk) 20:35, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:56, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:56, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: coverage is weak and reliable sources not found. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 23:12, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 13:00, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

B-Sides (Danko Jones album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable, poorly sourced album. --Jax 0677 (talk) 20:16, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:59, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:00, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - passes WP:NALBUMS. Reviews in AllMusic, Metal Storm, and Ox Fanzine, among others. There is significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent. --Ashleyyoursmile! 14:28, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per Ashleyyoursmile's rationale. Donaldd23 (talk) 15:16, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Reply - Per WP:NALBUM, "a standalone article is only appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged into the artist's article or discography".

Plenty of reviews to use to expand the article. Donaldd23 (talk) 15:08, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply - Be Bold! --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:22, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Meets WP:NALBUM with sources presented by Ashleyyoursmile. They're reliable enough IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 00:47, 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 13:00, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm Alive and on Fire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable poorly sourced album. --Jax 0677 (talk) 20:06, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:00, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:00, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Has an Allmusic rating/review. Donaldd23 (talk) 12:08, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply - Per WP:NALBUM, "a standalone article is only appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged into the artist's article or discography". --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:38, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

:** I agree with Jax 0677. Ashleyyoursmile! 08:31, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The Allmusic review is not trivial, and there are more reviews out there like [8], [9]. Geschichte (talk) 14:04, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - passes WP:NALBUMS. Reviews in multiple publications demonstrates significant coverage and clearly indicates that the album is notable for a standalone article. --Ashleyyoursmile! 14:32, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Reply - Per WP:NALBUM, "a standalone article is only appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged into the artist's article or discography".

Plenty of reviews to use to expand the article. Donaldd23 (talk) 15:09, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply - Be Bold! --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:30, 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} 23:15, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stepped profile (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Unsourced since 2006, and a vague descriptor/definition rather than actual topic. What's most concerning is the list of articles that point to this one are using the term in a generic way that invalidates the topic: [[10]]. "Stepped profile" describes rivers: none of the incoming wikilinks describe an aquatic body, but mountains or architecture with step-looking motif. This convolutes the possibility of a redirect. Likewise, the term brings up hits in other related fields (math, engineering) and sort of reinforces it as a generic description. It's not that it's a 'bad' topic, it's that it's a tangled mess that needs TNT. I welcome any other constructive fixes. Estheim (talk) 08:53, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. As was brought up at the geology portal discussion, "stepped profile" appears to be as generic as "cherry red" and is more appropriate for Wiktionary. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 14:03, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Also known as Cerise. SailingInABathTub (talk) 21:49, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, per WP:HEY, and the revised article. SailingInABathTub (talk) 16:19, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• As noted over at the geology portal discussion, I am pro an outright deletion. The text as written is poor and in places wrong, and as was pointed out at the talk page, the term is completely generic and the geomorphic use should not be privileged over others. Material is adequately and better covered in knickpoint, making this a fork. DanHobley (talk) 13:57, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete SailingInABathTub's revised article still violates Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. It also changes the topic of the article sufficiently that it makes the AfD no longer valid. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:43, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• It's not a dictionary definition. The article begins with a definition as it is supposed to and then goes on to describe how a stepped profile is used in architecture, construction, engineering, and geology. The revision also expands on the original article (the encyclopaedic part about rivers is still there) to take into account the nominators concerns about the other applications of this concept. SailingInABathTub (talk) 17:45, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:21, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:21, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, scholar search yields >3K results, surely stepped profile is notable consept. Argument could be made for merging it with another article or deleting it per OR (but I do not think this is the case) Cinadon36 07:31, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep seems at least marginally notable across disciplines, appears to have been discussed in engineering journals such as [11]. SportingFlyer T·C 12:23, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment What an odd mishmash of largely unrelated concepts. I don't think this counts as HEY, quite the opposite — at least the original stub was clear in what its subject was. If any of this is to be kept (and I'm not sure it should), the contents should IMO be split into clearly-delineated topics, eg. architecture, geo-/hydrology, etc.; that would also make it easier to judge notability. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:18, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - A simple generic concept that covers many disciplines - better covered by wiktionary. Mikenorton (talk) 10:02, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per SportingFlyer.4meter4 (talk) 16:21, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails WP:DICDEF. None of the examples given have any connection other than their basic shape, there's no indication that the term has a specific technical meaning in any field, and it seems unlikely that this could be expanded into a useful article. Tevildo (talk) 12:01, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:HEY. Good teamwork, folks. Bearian (talk) 18:05, 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 Danko Jones discography. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My Love Is Bold (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non notable, poorly sourced article. --Jax 0677 (talk) 20:00, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:09, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:09, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Danko Jones discography - Fails WP:NALBUMS and WP:GNG. Except the sole AllMusic review, I could not find anything that demonstrates that the album is notable to warrant a standalone article. There is no charting, certification, or accolades. The only Google hits are from Amazon, Spotify. --Ashleyyoursmile! 08:38, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:59, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bhoot Bangla (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

does not meet WP:NF, does not appear to have significant coverage by multiple, independent, reliable sources BOVINEBOY2008 19:47, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:53, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:53, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: per nom. Nothing found to pass GNG or NFILM. Kolma8 (talk) 09:36, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, most of the sources are primary or very closely-associated with the subjects involved in the film, especially with citations like Facebook, YouTube, IMDb and an MP4 download link. Anonymous 7481 (talk) 22:54, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: No significant Coverage found and not pass general notability guidelines. TheDreamBoat (talk) 23:15, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Garage Rock! – A Collection of Lost Songs from 1996–1998 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable, and poorly sourced album. --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:36, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:39, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Danko Jones discography. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:19, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - passes WP:NALBUMS. Reviews in AllMusic, Power Metal, The Grid, Music Nerd, and Ox Fanzine.de. I can see significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent. --Ashleyyoursmile! 08:50, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per Ashleyyoursmile's links. Donaldd23 (talk) 19:24, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Reply - Per WP:NALBUM, "a standalone article is only appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged into the artist's article or discography". --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:52, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Plenty of reviews to use to add to the article. Donaldd23 (talk) 16:35, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply - Be Bold! --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:23, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Meets WP:NALBUM with sources presented by Ashleyyoursmile. They're reliable enough IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 00:45, 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 merge to Gunapala Piyasena Malalasekera. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:16, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Malalasekara Dictionary (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Deprodded by the creator, Abhilasha Will (talk · contribs), without explanation or improvement. The original concern, by Dan arndt (talk · contribs), read: Fails WP:NBOOK, lacks any reliable secondary sources. The creator has had several problematic pages deleted or nominated for deletion, including an article about the same topic that was speedy deleted as a copyright violation. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:24, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:24, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:24, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:24, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, all the references are either book retail websites, including eBay and Amazon, which are not acceptable sources or about the author, with mentions in passing about the dictionary or are all about the author but don’t mention the dictionary at all. Dan arndt (talk) 01:51, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Per nom. Curbon7 (talk) 05:28, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/redirect to Gunapala Piyasena Malalasekera, the book's author, per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. Here are two sources I found that discuss the book (but do not qualify as significant coverage):
  1. Popovski, Vesselin; Reichberg, Gregory M.; Turner, Nicholas, eds. (2009). World Religions and Norms of War. Tokyo: United Nations University Press. p. 77. ISBN 9789280811636. Retrieved 2021-06-19.

     The book notes, "Significantly, in the English - Sinhalese Dictionary that Malalasekera compiled and published in 1948 – a dictionary widely used today by students of English in Sri Lanka - the English term “ holy war ” is translated specifically with the term"

  2. Malalasekera, Gunapala Piyasena; Mutukumāra, Nemsiri (1981). Tribute to Malalasekera: A Collection of Messages, Appreciations & Pen Portraits in Honour of Professor Gunapala Piyasena Malalasekera. Colombo: Mutukumara. p. 246. OCLC 614934449. Retrieved 2021-06-19.

     The book notes: "I should like to mention also his English- Sinhalese Dictionary (1948), which I can safely say, speaking as a foreigner, is much superior to any other English- Sinhala dictionary I know — it is a pity he was never able to produce a companion Sinhala-English dictionary, which is still lacking to us even today."

  There may be print sources and Sinhala sources that provide significant coverage of the book. In the absence of finding those sources, a merge to Gunapala Piyasena Malalasekera per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion should be done instead of deletion.

  Cunard (talk) 23:57, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment would support a Merge/redirect for the reasons as outlined by Cunard above. Dan arndt (talk) 03:38, 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:39, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Clausen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Requested by Trap133 with the rationale "Fails WP:GNG"

I will add my own opinion in the discussion Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 16:09, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 16:09, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Before actioning the request for a deletion discussion I conducted my own WP:BEFORE. I accepted the request because I agree. Fails WP:GNG, with no obvious useful sources. The requestor's opinion is in the nomination. Mine is here in my !vote Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 16:11, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Delete. Fails WP:GNG no significant news coverage and reliable sources. Trap133 (talk) 16:32, 18 June 2021 (UTC) strike per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Oficialtowhid. —Nnadigoodluck███ 12:16, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note please that this editor's !vote is in the nomination, made on their behalf, so this should be treated as a comment Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 16:37, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Sun8908 _Talk 18:40, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Google Scholar h-index of 6 is indicative of modest academic output in his field. Uhooep (talk) 14:33, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as mentioned above he has a low scholar index, and we have not identified significant sources covering him in a way to pass GNG. He does not pass Academic notability point 1, and is not even close to passing any other academic notability points.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:03, 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 00:04, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Meaghan Davies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Requested by trap133 with the rationale "This article does not cite any sources. Lack of notability and reliable sources."

I will place my own opinion in the discussion Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 16:00, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 16:00, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: While nominating this on behalf of the requestor I conducted a WP:BEFORE and have concluded that there is no obvious coverage that shows that she passes WP:NACTOR. Their opinion as requestor is in the nomination. My opinion is here in my !vote Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 16:02, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Delete. This article does not cite any sources. Lack of notability and reliable sources. This article fails WP:NACTOR.Trap133 (talk) 16:28, 18 June 2021 (UTC) strike per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Oficialtowhid. —Nnadigoodluck███ 12:15, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note please that this editor's !vote is in the nomination, made on their behalf, so this should be treated as a comment Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 16:25, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:39, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:39, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Article fails WP:SIGCOV besucase 1) there are no citations, and 2) the external links led to sites that weren’t independent of the subject— her IMDB page, official website, and possibly her resumé. I was also unable to find any articles online. Helen (let’s talk) 22:40, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I could only find a handful of articles mentioning the subject from the early 2000s in a search of Australian and NZ newspapers via ProQuest (broader and deeper than Google), and none of these are substantive, just passing mentions of cast or photo captions. Fails GNG. Cabrils (talk) 07:47, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:13, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pinnacle Blooms Network (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This article is supported only by press releases. The claims the article makes - 7,000+ centres across the globe - are impressive, but I can't find any independent, reliable sources confirming any of that, all of the coverage I can find looks like republished press releases. The author has not declared any affiliation to this organisation, but describes himself as a 'digital marketer' on his userpage, so it may be an example of WP:UPE. I can't find any sourcing of the quality called for by WP:NCORP. Girth Summit _(blether) 15:58, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Girth Summit _(blether) 15:58, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Girth Summit _(blether) 15:58, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: This is a well disguised advert. Many of the references are regurgitated press releases and PR material. WP:BOMBARD applies. That it is a good cause is interesting, but irrelevant. Fails WP:NCORP. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 16:34, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be clear - I believe that all of the references are regurgitated press releases and PR material! I looked, but I wasn't able to find anything that looked like organic coverage. Girth Summit _(blether) 22:47, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I was only able to speak about the selection I checked. Checking all must have been a marathon task. I commend you for it. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 11:01, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Spam and promotional. RationalPuff (talk) 11:43, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 03:16, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pat Rolle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Missed the PROD in the history (thanks Explicit) when I nominated, but the reason still holds: A Before indicates no evidence of notability per MUSIC or the GNG. He's had some engagements, but there's no significant, in depth coverage. Star Mississippi 14:17, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 14:17, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 14:17, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - He was noticed by Billboard in 1969 as a local draw in his city, and that is a reliable source but not sufficiently significant beyond a basic introduction. He still gets occasional local gig announcements to this day. Good for him but that's not enough for an encyclopedic article here. Also note that all his media coverage mentions that he sounds just like someone more famous, which is not necessarily a compliment. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:27, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:35, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Fails WP:NMUSICIAN. No coverage that I was able to find that could be used to change my opinion Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 16:36, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The sources used here are not much reliable, does not follows all the norms.Aloolkaparatha (talk) 03:20, 21 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. Discounting the low-contribution users for possible COI issues and not citing reliable sources about the person. Sandstein 06:21, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Maithya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

No indication of notability per WP:GNG or WP:BIO. I found about 40 results in a Google search, mostly social media and things that he's written. Also a conflict of interest issue arises since he wrote an article about another entrepreneur and she wrote this article about him. ... discospinster _talk 14:22, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 14:22, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 14:22, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The subject Daniel Maithya has been widely covered by several reliable and globaly recognised news websites and media houses. I don't see why it should be deleted. I think the article should remain published. Shatimpya (talk) 18:18, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I find that this article has several contributors who have widely contributed to the article which is a good thing. I don't see why an article with several contributors who believe this person is notable should be deleted. AfrikanTraveler (talk) 18:06, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A google and youtube search shows a wide coverage of the subject by media houses and blogs with over 100 search results. LucyChegeM (talk) 18:57, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Then show your work. Link the best sources you can find on that Google search that (1) discuss him at length, (2) have have strong editorial oversight that fact-checks, retracts, and discloses, and (3) has no connexion to him or his surrogates. Merely saying there's 100 hits on Google/YouTube is meaningless. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 20:02, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. AfrikanTraveler, LucyChegeM, and Shatimpya have had 24 hours, so I'll judge the article based on what potential sources are already there, and it frankly does not look promising in the least. None of the actual articles there are usable as sources; the closest is this Nairobi News piece which is more about KenyaChat and doesn't say anything about Maithya that he doesn't say himself. BEFORE returns nothing usable, either (string: "daniel maithya"). —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 21:07, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:22, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Malvi Malhotra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Failing the notability criteria. Almost there but not quite. Please see WP:NACTOR. PangolinPedia 15:07, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. PangolinPedia 15:11, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.PangolinPedia 15:11, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. PangolinPedia 15:11, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

• 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 18. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:07, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:02, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:BLP1E, she seems to pass WP:GNG at first glance, but upon closer inspection all of the sources are about a single event where she was stabbed by a producer. Outside of that event, the only coverage is in unreliable sources. Devonian Wombat (talk) 00:46, 20 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 Battlestar Galactica characters. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:14, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Doral (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Minor Battlestar Galactica character. The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline requirement nor the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) supplementary essay. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. Previous AfD was a bundled mess, one source was cited for him ([12]) but it's just mentions him in passing few times (WP:SIGCOV fail), and there is no discussion of him outside plot summary anyway. Other mentions I see are similarly sparse. There is nothing to salvage here (since the entry is unreferenced, not counting one footnote to a TV series episode), so a redirect to List of Battlestar Galactica characters is best we can do here, I am afraid. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:42, 11 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} 11:42, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:42, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I note there are existing articles for numbers one, two, three and four... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:22, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Some of those could be discussed here, but let's not overwhelm the discussions. Trying to find sources and such takes time. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:57, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of Battlestar Galactica characters. I found no significant coverage of this character in general web or book searches, or in the surprisingly large corpus of Battlestar Galactica academic studies. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 14:48, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of Battlestar Galactica characters - There does not appear to be significant coverage of the character that goes beyond plot synopsis. He is already listed on the proposed target, so a Redirect there would be sufficient. Rorshacma (talk) 23:53, 18 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. While notability is permanent, our standards for inclusion can change as can consensus. There is a consensus in this discussion that under the current NCORP standards that there is not sufficient sourcing available to justify an independent article. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:36, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Horizon Technologies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Doesn't meet WP:NCORP, WP:INDEPENDENT, WP:MULTSOURCES and WP:CORPDEPTH. It's abandoned and I think it won't get more cited or improved. Asketbouncer (talk) 11:43, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:08, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:08, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The article says it all: "Defunct" Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:19, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Once notable, always notable. I restored a paragraph about the prosecution for fraud of two people related to the company. Now that the paragraph and its references have been restored, notability is clear. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:40, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:41, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It is well sourced and interesting. Obviously, simply because a company has ceased to exist does not make it insignificant. Westinghouse Electric Corporation, Studebaker, DeLorean Motor Company, etc., etc., are companies that have ceased to exist. Just a difference in degree is insufficient to make something completely not notable. The criminality has added to noteworthiness. Jay Jor (talk) 11:53, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. When compared to the previous discussion about deleting this article, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Horizon Technologies, nothing really new has been added to a detailed discussion of the issue. The first time this article was nominated for deletion, a consensus was reached to keep the article. With changes as recent as 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, etc., it had not been abandoned. Even if it had, an article ceasing to change does not make it go from being notable to not being notable. Jay Jor (talk) 11:53, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Even with the newly discovered news, none of them are in-depth. A company "known for one thing" is not notable.Webmaster862 (talk) 08:40, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. That means, nothing that relies on company information or announcements or interviews, etc. In addition, none of the article references the fraud and subsequent convictions provides in-depth information on the company with Independent Content. In summary, not a single one of the references in the article meet the criteria. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:43, 19 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 07:35, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Khalid bin Mohammed al-Rabban (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

There is nothing to indicate notability. I find no coverage of this person in English language sources. If there are reliable sources in other languages, then they should be highlighted in this discussion. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:27, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:36, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Qatar-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:36, 11 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 Shipley Energy. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:36, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Doesn't look like this meets WP:NCORP. Very small convenience store chain. It apparently had more locations at one time, but infobox says just one left now. The article hasn't been updated to match (still says it operated in 15 counties). Most of the article is unsourced, two of the three sources are DLs and probably didn't contribute to notability. The one working source does not mention subject. I get a timeout trying to access the website. Searching turns up a few newspaper articles on store closings. This seems to have been a minor operation of parent Shipley Energy, which itself is poorly sourced. There is some history that could be merged if it were cited; this should redirect instead for now (Shipley Energy has been has been tagged since 2013 and might not survive if it was AFD'ed). MB 02:29, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MB 02:29, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. MB 02:29, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Seems like it fails WP:GNG. I could be incorrect there but even then, this seems like WP:MILL and I'm not sure if it's worth keeping. — BriefEdits (talk) 20:33, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Shipley Energy for now. Seems pretty clear there is insufficient coverage for a standalone article, and I don't see much worth merging. I agree with MB that Shipley Energy might also not survive AFD, but that bridge may be crossed at the appropriate time.--Mojo Hand (talk) 14:41, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. There is consensus that there is a notable topic (perhaps more than one) which would include some coverage of Inner Party. However, there is consensus that this topic isn't independently notable and a further consensus that this article does not offer value (i.e. concerns about OR) to such a notable topic. Thus there is no satisfactory alternative to deletion. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:41, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Last AfD (in 2014) was a procedural close suggesting merge discussion that never happened. The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline requirement nor the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) supplementary essay. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. The term is mentioned in some sources, but generally as a plot summary element (for example, [13] mentions that the IP "employs ideology to eliminate the very possibility of thought", which sounds nice but really doesn't convey anything outside sayign that this group was the elite, the top social class of the 1984's world - and that one sentence seems to be the extent of what can be said about this group outside of plot summary/OR. This is repeated in some other works, none of which analyses this group in detail. The sources cited here are a student essay or not in-depth. Overall, I think there is potentially a notable topic (or a section) to be written about the "social structure of 1984/social classes in 1984", (we also have this diagram), to which Inner Party, the Proles (Nineteen Eighty-Four) and the worst (quality-wise) Outer Party could redirect, but there is nothing to save from the current version of those articles (WP:TNT). For the record, speaking as as a social scientists, no scholar would consider a minor element like the Inner Party worth a dedicated article, but BEFORE does show that the society of 1984 has been written about - but sadly we don't have such an article yet. The diagram is the sole useful element of the current fancrufty piece we have here and it will survive on Commons anyway, to be restored to the proper overview of the society portrayed in the book, once someone decides to write it up (maybe even I'll do it one day). Oh, and note that 90% of the Proles article is actually about the ""Social_structure_of_Oceania") - sadly it is unreferenced OR. PS. If anyone cares, Template:Nineteen Eighty-Four lists quite a few of similar fancrufty articles, many pepperred with citation requests, OR and notability warnings for years, some of which may be rescuable, but all need a review, and several should end up here (although at least the main concepts - newspeak, doublethink, 2+2=5, seem to be ok-ish). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:25, 11 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} 04:25, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:25, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've made a reasonable case for restructuring our 1984 coverage to be more encyclopedic. Why do we need an AfD for this? It'll end up keep, merge, or redirect, and we'll all write about the potential article, rather than actually writing the potential article. Jclemens (talk) 05:37, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Jclemens, Hmmm, the problem is that there is next to nothing to merge from those outside the lead which is unreferenced. The topic, when written from scratch, won't benefit from the current articles at all. As I said, I may even write this up myself, but there's nothing I can use in the current versions, I'd have to delete most of it - all of it - anyway, before writing the new article. I guess SOFTDELETE and REDIRECT might be considered if I (or someone else) gets around to stubbing the article on the society of 1984 before this ends. I'll try to find time to do it over the next few days, if nothing else comes up. That said, my initial look at the sources doesn't suggest it will be an easy job, and frankly, we have a decent SOFTDELETE redirect target already (Nineteen_Eighty-Four#World_in_novel). Not that this section looks good, aargh. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:54, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep How many fingers am I holding up? That's the number of times that this page has been dragged here to Room 101 for a Two Minutes Hate before it is dropped down the memory hole. But we still don't love Big Brother and so the result is always Keep. That's because you need to know these things to be literate and so these tropes belong here. The details of how this is done is not important per WP:NOTPAPER. And all the other usual policies and guidelines still apply: WP:ATD, WP:NEXIST; WP:NOTCLEANUP; WP:PRESERVE; &c. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:57, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"It's a beautiful thing, the destruction of words."

— George Orwell, Nineteen Eighty-Four

• Delete. Contrary to the assertion above, Wikipedia is not TV Tropes or Book Tropes or such, and this topic fails GNG. Also, the sarcastic comment above is too much, seriously. - GizzyCatBella🍁 10:26, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:OR not notable neither nor not sourced way too much detail outside the scope of structured analysis based on sources of 1984's society as per Piotrus's excellent analysis above. I also agree some of the comments here are getting a bit personal. It's a guideline/policy based decision we're discussing, not a vendetta against one editor and their POV regarding the entire rationale of article deletion. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:17, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - As stated by the nom, while it comes up in searches, its basically only mentioned as part of wider discussions of the plot or analysis of 1984 as a whole, and does not have enough coverage or analysis on itself, specifically, that would warrant a WP:SPLIT. The basic plot elements are already covered on the main Nineteen Eighty-Four article already. I would not be opposed to a Redirect, though, if other users think this might be a useful search term. Rorshacma (talk) 15:02, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Ingsoc where the subject is already covered. This is an important part of Orwell’s world but much of the article is unsourced, and it can be covered well in the article on the political system and social structure. Sjakkalle (Check!) 17:32, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sjakkalle, Just a technical note - I doubt Ingsoc is notable, either, and I intend to have it discussed at AfD in the near future, unless the article is improved (and I'll do at least one more BEFORE for it, of course). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:53, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this is easily one of the most important works of literature, and I'm even willing to guess that there's something out there that isn't just unreliable sources. In the long run, I might recommend covering this in some sort of Glossary of 1984, as I suspect that there is more research about the overall impact of 1984 on our language than there are sources that deep-dive individually into each concept. But there is nothing reliable in this article to WP:PRESERVE, and even an article that shows WP:POTENTIAL would need to have the bare minimum of reliable sources, which this does not. I sadly agree with Piotrus that other related articles are even worse shape. Shooterwalker (talk) 13:08, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As 1984-cruft, just because the book is extremely well known does not mean every single minor plot element must have an article; that is a job for FANDOM._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 05:12, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:15, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of remote sensing satellites (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

WP:NOTCAT; plus, there's List of remote sensing satellites already. fgnievinski (talk) 05:30, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. fgnievinski (talk) 05:30, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Any article which starts with the immortal words, 'For a more comprehensive list of n, see:' is doomed, isn't it? Hopelessly inadequate list that duplicates List of Earth observation satellites. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:08, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or Merge anything worth salvaging to List of Earth observation satellites.--Surv1v4l1st ^{▌Talk|Contribs▌} 00:23, 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) 08:04, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Yobe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:NAUTHOR, this is a WP:ROTM so called social media personality. This has been draftified once, doing so again seems to me to be invalid. It's also an advert for a book, one which appears to be self published on 4th June 2021. Pure spam. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 11:52, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 11:52, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The article was published just after the book was released. The article just contains links to buy the book. That's it. Dr.KBAHT (talk) 17:10, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:03, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, fails WP:GNG, the only sources available from a search are press releases and other primary sources. Devonian Wombat (talk) 00:40, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No genuine sources used. Not Notable.Aloolkaparatha (talk) 07:27, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This was moved by the creating editor to Draft: and deletion notice was removed in order to seek to avoid deletion. It would have been rejected on review, or sent to MfD. I have reinstatred the AfD notice and moved it back to mainspace to continue this deletion process. Warning the editor. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 08:39, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG. -Xclusivzik (talk) 11:33, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per others Nexus000 (talk) 09:56, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per all above, I draftified the first attempt to publish this article in the mainspace for the same reasons. Best, GPL93 (talk) 14:58, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:53, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Balaji S. Kumar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Apparently non-notable scientist. No in-depth coverage in the sources in the page (NB, linkedin, researchgate), h-index of 5 according to Scopus. He apparently has a back-yard observatory – see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Golden Ears Observatory. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:46, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:46, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:46, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-notable per nom. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:08, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. A Google Scholar search for "Balaji Shankar Kumar" is more productive than with the middle initial, but the citation record still falls well short of WP:NPROF C1, particularly in a higher citation field. No sign of other notability. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 12:28, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:03, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:35, 18 June 2021 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete. We have neither adequate scholarly impact for WP:PROF#C1 nor adequate in-depth sourcing for his amateur astronomy for WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:21, 19 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 once it is listed in the prospective target article. Sandstein 06:35, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Golden Ears Observatory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

According to this page, this is somebody's backyard observatory. There's no indication that it might meet WP:NCORP. It gets no valid hit on GBooks, no result on Scholar. It isn't even mentioned in this local-boy-makes-good piece in the local paper. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:31, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:31, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:31, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Balaji S. Kumar may be of interest.Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:49, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-notable, with the same likely COI issues behind both articles. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:09, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of astronomical observatories. Non-notable. Praemonitus (talk) 01:15, 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. Geschichte (talk) 08:02, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Funimation Channel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This seems to be an article for something that is non-existent, and thus would not be notable. The article seems to have been revived, after having been moved from Funimation Channel to Toku (TV network) in 2015. There is no source that confirms that Funimation Channel exists from 2016 onwards, after the service was shut down in 2015, according to The Fandom Post. Furthermore, the majority of the content on this page is just taken from Toku (TV network). The current article states that Funimation Channel is an SVOD service, however, there is no source that confirms an existence of an SVOD service named Funimation Channel, with this source found in the article stating that Funimation would relaunch a new cable channel in 2016 (which never happened), not an SVOD service. Furthermore, there is no source corroborating the launch date, nor that the relaunch was an SVOD service. The SVOD service that Funimation actually operates is named "Funimation", formerly named "FunimationNow" until 2020, and that service is already covered as part of the Funimation article. tenshibeat (talk|contribs) 11:17, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:21, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:21, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Funimation#Funimation_Channel. Not notable enough for its own article. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:34, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Funimation#Funimation_Channel Outside merging the 2006-15 Funimation infobox, everything about their cable service has already been cleanly merged over time as a natural transition from cable to streaming, though a separate List of programs aired by Funimation article may be needed for the FC programming section (though sourcing issues should be addressed). Nate • (chatter) 03:54, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think it is necessary to create a separate list article, given that shows that aired on Funimation Channel on cable are listed on Toku (TV network), and most other titles Funimation has can be found on Category:Funimation. tenshibeat (talk|contribs) 09:02, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I did not see there was a Funimation cat..so outside the IB continuity, a redirect is good without needing to transfer the List of. Nate • (chatter) 00:13, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • The IP address tried to create something like this at List of programs broadcast by Funimation Channel, but it was converted to a redirect. Link20XX (talk) 01:33, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Funimation#Funimation Channel and add a hatnote in that section pointing to Toku (TV network) per nom. I agree this article is unnecessary. Link20XX (talk) 14:25, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 08:01, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Feast of the Gods (Epic Poem) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

No evidence of any notability at all for this self-published new poem. No speedy deletion criterion exists for this, sadly, so at AfD we are! Fram (talk) 10:46, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 10:46, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 10:46, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I've blocked the user for having an undisclosed conflict of interest and for self-promotion. They have made only two articles, one of which was for a book series by the same author back in 2017. The name in the deleted article is slightly different, but if you search for the book title and the name of the poem's author, evidence pops up to show that they're the same person. I must also note that the user's name is very similar to the author's, which suggests a COI here. They were questioned about this and they denied having any COI. Editing with a COI within policy is fine, but hiding that COI is not. I personally think that this should be deleted as self-promotion but have no problem with this going through AfD since that's a more firm form of deletion, as the poem is very non-notable. Since I blocked the user I'll refrain from officially making a "vote" here. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:28, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I don't even see an attempt here to establish notability per WP:NBOOK. Furthermore, the only Google hits I can find are from Wikipedia and its mirrors. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:28, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I tried searching the Georgian name of the poem too, to see if there were non-English sources, and found absolutely nothing that qualities as a reliable source -- all four Google pages of hits are for facebook, blogs, and personal sites. I'm not sure how many of those were really about this poem, but regardless I don't see support for NBOOK or for GNG. ~ oulfis 🌸(talk) 20:32, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: No reliable sources, no evidence of notability. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 23:23, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep With the Georgian, name its can be found on the website of the National Parliamentary Library of Georgia ^[1] (｡◕‿◕｡) ~Thrago (talk) 22:17, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• A catalogue entry seems like an irrelevant source. Geschichte (talk) 08:01, 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) 07:59, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2021 Izmir Peoples' Democratic Party provincial organization attack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

News fact without serious impact The Banner talk 08:36, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The article includes references from TRT World and English DW right now, which might increase its notability. @The Banner: could you check it again? Pamfilyalı (talk) 08:51, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• People are angry, that is understandable. But I still see only one victim. The Banner talk 11:02, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @The Banner: One victim + a scrap major political party building in a 4 million populated city + an allegedly government-sponsored attack + allegations against two allegedly-paramilitary organizations (SADAT and Grey Wolves) and a major government partner in Turkey (Nationalist Movement Party).
• WP:EVENTCRITERIA states that "Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards (as described below).". This attack had been subject of a lot of controversies such as HDP's allegations, Sedat Peker who is a mafia leader currently publishing secret files about Turkish government blaming the government about the attack, and Erdogan's speech about the attack on Meral Akşener, chairwoman of an opposition party, Good Party, in Rize, stating that there will be continuation of these attacks against opposition, which happened right before/about 10 days before this another attack on another opposition party HDP. I added the WIP template to the article again, in order to cover whole points. Pamfilyalı (talk) 11:15, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The article says nothing about the destruction of the building. Just the shooting of one woman. And a lot of unproven allegations. The Banner talk 12:36, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Does the fact of "only one death" removes whole notability criteria about large national (or in lesser extent international) impact? I don't think that impact is only decided by quantity but news coverage and "unproven allegations" (I honestly don't think that the perpetrator undergoing a military training in Northern Syria with a lot of photos is unproven), which comes from more than one source, against a "sovereign state". — Pamphylian ● 💬 18:50, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• It is not a terrorist attack with many victims. And I noticed that by now three of the four existing articles (in Dutch, German and English) about this attack are listed for removal and that you worked on three of the four articles (in Turkish, German and English). The Banner talk 22:17, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:14, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:14, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep Terrorist attack with national and international coverage. Lemonde.fr, France24/AFP, Sputnik, ... Yug (talk) 11:41, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: i am addressing here the topic's notability which requires a Keep. I am not addressing the fact we have two articles to merge, which is another issue. Yug (talk) 17:47, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep due to the reasons covered above. Pamfilyalı (talk) 13:55, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I think this article should be on Wikinews, not Wikipedia. OvalThunder9^💬 18:10, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:EVENTCRITERIA says that "Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards (as described below)". The attack has been also covered both in national and international media widely, plus the aftermath allegations. What is the reason making you believe that the article should be moved to Wikinews? — Pamphylian ● 💬 18:51, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep [14], [15], [16] [17] [18], [19] i think it's crystal clear :) --Elenktra (talk) 19:03, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let us take a look in a week to see if this was just a hype or an attack with a lasting effect. An encyclopedia is not a news site. The Banner talk 22:17, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per 1 and 2. CVValue (talk) 00:46, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is a notable event, especially because of it's simultaneity with HDP trials.Paraw (talk) 06:53, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• comment FYI: there is also a merge discussion. The attack is sure notable as it includes political violence and a murder directed against a Kurdish politician of the HDP, a pro-Kurdish Turkish opposition party. There will be a notable Murder trial and manifestations for years. But I doubt if the attack is notable enough for itself, as attacks against the HDP happen all the time.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 12:45, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) 5225_C (talk • contributions) 03:43, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maya Weug (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

New Formula 4 driver lacking significant coverage, and failing the standards set by WP:GNG, WP:YOUNGATH, and WP:NMOTORSPORT. Yes, she is the first female driver to be signed to the FDA, but that did not attract meaningful coverage and Wikipedia is not a means of promotion or a soapbox.
5225_C (talk • contributions) 08:35, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:15, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:15, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:15, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:15, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:15, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. gidonb (talk) 14:08, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Clearly meets the WP:GNG. This looks like a WP:BEFORE failure to me. Looking at the larger picture: as with Maya Weug, breaking the glass ceiling often receives WP:SIGCOV. It would be sad if women pioneers had no place on WP. The history that women are making should not be reduced to a soapbox. gidonb (talk) 13:18, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral - A fairly large number of reliable, independent sources do seem to exist; however most of them seem to be primarily focusing on the Ferrari Driver Academy and the broader history of women in motorsport and not on Maya Weug specifically. However, there may be sources in other languages which are more detailed and would fully establish notability. Within the broader context of a large number of WP:BLPs about young racing drivers being created and my ethical concerns regarding that I'm inclined to lean towards calling this WP:TOOSOON, but I suspect that my concerns about those other articles may be clouding my judgement regarding this one. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 16:28, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  The sources, national through international and VERY important, specifically, explicitly, and elaborately say that Maya Weug is making history. That's a HUGE contrast with race car drivers receiving local interest. gidonb (talk) 16:47, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I found CNN ("Maya Weug becomes first female driver to earn a spot in the Ferrari Driver Academy"), BBC Sport ("Ferrari: Maya Weug becomes team's first female academy driver") and Italy 24 ("German F4 | First top-10 for Maya Weug in Austria – Formule") coverage that focuses on Weug. Beccaynr (talk) 16:33, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you, it seems like there are indeed enough sources for Weug to be included. I obviously didn't do a thorough check for sources, so I apologise for my misjudgement in this nomination, and I will withdraw it.
  5225_C (talk • contributions) 03:43, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:40, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]