Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 June 5

< June 04 June 06 >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:15, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Turu Love

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

Per TVSHOW, it says "It is far less likely to be notable if it airs in only one local media market". Apart from some usual promotional news, there is nothing else. There are not enough RS for this webseries. Fails WP:TVSERIES, WP:GNG. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 19:44, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:49, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:49, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep as per norm meet every criteria. Bengal Boy (talk) 05:51, 25 May 2021 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE per this Run n Fly (talk) 08:18, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*::@আফতাবুজ্জামান: is those news coverage looks like promotional ? I don't think so. Bengal Boy (talk) 17:13, 25 May 2021 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE per this Run n Fly (talk) 08:18, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:08, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:58, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agree with আফতাবুজ্জামান's assessment. Announcements and interviews do not contribute to notability. There's one review at LetsOTT but its not enough to meet GNG. -- Ab207 (talk) 15:36, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete [telegraphindia.com/entertainment/hoichois-turu-love-is-not-about-clingy-relationships/cid/1806182] , [1] & other such sources are not making it notable, not reliable. Sock is not the concern for afd. 1друг (talk) 19:52, 10 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 05:36, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maradonar Juto

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

Per TVSHOW, it says "It is far less likely to be notable if it airs in only one local media market". Apart from two usual news, there is nothing else. There are not enough RS for this web serie. Fails WP:TVSERIES, WP:GNG. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 19:35, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:46, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:47, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:09, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per TVSHOW, it says "It is far less likely to be notable if it airs in only one local media market. In either case, however, the presence or absence of reliable sources is more definitive than the geographic range of the program's audience alone." This particular article is about a programme on a platform which is beyond geographical boundaries. That has been established in the platform's own article accessible here: hoichoi. Deletion of this article would set an example that articles about other programmes on this platform would also be up for deletion on the same grounds. Passes WP:TVSERIES. sthakur88 (talk) 10:11, 03 June 2021 (UTC+5:30)

With this logic, we can create every series streaming on hoichoi. Apart from two usual news, there is nothing else. There are not enough WP:RS and significant coverage for this web series. I don't how this article passes WP:TVSERIES, WP:GNG. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 16:13, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:57, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Never said anything about creating page for every series streaming on hoichoi. There are more than two usual news. In fact, considering it is a very new series, the fact that it is being discussed with much more recognised programs in certain platforms, is a recognition in itself. I have added several references and news articles to the original page. I would request editors to actually do some research before categorising it with sweeping statements like 'just two articles'. This article has the potential to be improved over time. At the very extreme, it can be marked as a stub (which it has been already). Deletion is always the last option.sthakur88 (talk) 10:39, 07 June 2021 (UTC+5:30)

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 05:36, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimate Motorhead Show

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

Non-notable auto show. Results in Google search are very sparse. No evidence of notability. Therapyisgood (talk) 23:55, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:29, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:29, 6 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) Natg 19 (talk) 21:04, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hot Rod Charlie

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

The horse has not won Grade I events which is the minimum requirement for the Wikipedia:WikiProject Horse racing hence failing WP:GNG. (talk) 11:40, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Horse racing-related deletion discussions. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 11:56, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (originally was for delete but the arguments changed my mind.) I could argue that almost all of the coverage that includes Hot Rod Charlie is related to the races and not the horse in particular. That was why I originally agreed that the article should be deleted. Now I'm leaning the other way, especially given the Beyer assigned to him from the Belmont (107 - higher than American Pharoah) and the praise for him hanging on despite the torrid pace. (Andy Serling called it the best losing effort in New York since Seattle Slew lost to Exceller - praise indeed). So, yeah. Tough call. If consensus was for delete, I'd move it to a sandbox because IMO he's got a Grade I in there if he can just dodge Essential Quality. Second in the BCJuvenile and Belmont, and third/second in the Derby is quite the resume. Reminds me of Gun Runner. Jlvsclrk (talk) 20:36, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep He won the Louisiana Derby and he was third in the Kentucky Derby and second in the Belmont Stakes which after Medina Spirit is inevitably disqualified will render him the second best sustained track record during the 2021 Thoroughbred triple crown racingbseasin.. This is just wrong another play to prove somebody can delete something which plagues wikipedia.. there is a story here ..He has substantial new coverage and all put together he is more than notable. . ...Strattonsmith (talk) 03:11, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree, Louisiana Derby is only a Grade II event and it is the only graded event that Hot Rod Charlie has won. Being placed in a Grade I event is not a criteria for inclusion of an article even though they were Classic events. There are many Grade II winners who do not have articles and there are also far more qualified Grade I winners who do not have article but should. Winning a second tier event is not enough and if it was there would be whole host of article which the project would need to include. Therefore there is a reason why there needs to be a limit for inclusion. I agree with Jlvsclrk that the article be placed in a sandbox awaiting the time until Hot Rod Charlie wins a GI event. Until that time we are not WP:Crystal and the article needs to be deleted. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 10:02, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree with your disagreement Please try and think about ths in another way, Rhe Kentucky Derby especially the contested 2021 running of it is a major news event and Hot Rod Charlie was a material player in it as well as having led for most of the Race tbe Belmont Stakes and finishing second in that race. yet another large news story. The reason other Grade 1 winners do not have pages is that no one took tbe time to write them. Here it is a cumulative score which renders thus player newsworthy and notable. Honestly the brief for deletion sounds like an interior argument not reflective of the outside world.Strattonsmith (talk) 14:16, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More Delete per your argument: Your choice to disagree, but your argument falls far short of what is WP:N and WP:GNG that is needed for this project. Your projection falls into WP:RECENT which for this moment its on your mind but for the general inclusion at this point in time Hot Rod Charlie falls below what's needed for an article today. Refer to WP:NHORSERACING as to what is considered needed for an article about a horse. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 15:10, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Au Contraire It succeeds on news coverage and involvement in major events (two) above and beyond horse racing criterion.Strattonsmith (talk) 16:35, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your comment - Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Refer to WP:NOTNP. Guidance for this project was left to those who were interested and although it is amendable I don't see how Hot Rod Charlie can exist unless he wins another GII or a GI. In time that is possible but today we are not there. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 17:09, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - You my friend are looking at in the wrong way. And eventually he will do it in the barn (lOl) where he will have a hand in making more Wikipedia pages which someone can say in the future don't exist and perhaps after the creators of those future pages get pissed their subjects too in the end will persist. Meanwhile he exists whether you think so or not. Why delete something which is going go back up inevitably just to prove you can prosecute a case on the thinnest of circumstances, are you running for office?Strattonsmith (talk) 18:21, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep The horse not winning any grade I races has nothing to do with WP:GNG. It is part of the SNG, please see WP:NHORSERACING. General notability is the same for all subjects. Sports-specific guidelines hold these more inclusive guidelines such as the graded stakes and hall of fame criteria. Also, Grade I is not the only way to meet the SNG. Per the SNG, "individuals who have won multiple significant Grade/Group II/III graded stakes races..." At any rate, I see more than enough to meet WP:GNG, as in significant and reliable coverage, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Any article that meets GNG does not also have to meet SNG criteria; it is there as another way to help articles meet notability. Here are some more sources, not all are newspaper sources: Note: I have updated this list out of necessity. Some sources pulled and some new ones added. Also the list formatting has been fixed.:dawnleelynn(talk) 03:16, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Add a few more sources, some about other than the Triple Crown races. Broke track record at Louisiana Derby. Some major news sources added.
03:31, 8 June 2021 (UTC)dawnleelynn(talk)Add source regarding next race strong possibiity.dawnleelynn(talk) 00:56, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

dawnleelynn(talk) 19:49, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

dawnleelynn, in response to your posting "individuals who have won multiple significant Grade/Group II/III graded stakes races...", Hot Rod Charlie has won only one Grade II. Nothing multiple. Sure there are many references but they do nothing to confirm notability only that the horse was beaten in the G1 Belmont Stakes. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 21:42, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment Why are you suddenly pinging a user out in this discussion? This is not personal. Anyway, I am referring to the discussions throughout this Articles for Deletion regarding sandboxing the Hot Rod Charlie article until he wins a Grade I race. That is not the only path mentioned in the SNG is what I am specifying. However, I am not saying any path in the SNG applies here. I have already stated that the article meets GNG. There is an almost endless supply of sources for this article. They are (as stated in the GNG) significant coverage, reliable, secondary, independent of the subject, and can be presumed to merit an article for this subject.dawnleelynn(talk) 22:03, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The point being Brudder that your missing is that it is above and beyond and not just about grade1 and grade 2 victories it is that he played a significant part in two cross- referentially to society in general events. What if he caused a stampede and there were multiple casualties would then the only thing that mattered be that he only won the Louisiana Derby, and finished second in the Kentucky Derby and the Belmont Stakes or then if he does it in barn as a sire for hire your argument should be retired.Strattonsmith (talk) 23:59, 6 June 2021 (UTC)tired[reply]

Keep Classic example of the distinction between GNG and SNG. SNGs are tools to help editors determine notability where GNG is vague or not clear. In this case, we have GNG when you combine all coverage. Yes, only a G II win, which, by itself would probably not meet GNG, but we add to this being third in the Derby (second if they do DQ Medina Spirit, which is likely) and second in the Belmont, each individually not GNG by themselves, either, but combined all together in a drama-prone year and with a extremely colorful ownership group that also got a lot of coverage, I think he’s there. If he was gelded and retired tomorrow, we might reassess, but IMHO if we are looking at a close case, I think it fits. If others disagree, I do agree that it should not be deleted, and could move to draft space while we see what else he does this summer or even next year. But I vote keep. As for WP:OTHERSTUFF, we do need other articles on other horses, particularly Kentucky Oaks winners, and I encourage everyone to pitch in. Montanabw(talk) 06:18, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If something fails WP:NHORSERACING, then we fall back to WP:GNG to establish notability. This horse has received pretty substantial press coverage as a result of being a leading contender in the triple crown races this year, as pointed out by dawnleelyn, and so I think this is a pretty clear pass. Aspening (talk) 20:20, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 16:14, 12 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; Trove is where the goods are. (non-admin closure) Elmidae (talk · contribs) 02:09, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Petrie Plaza

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

I'm not super conversant with the notability thresholds usually applied to shopping malls, but the coverage here seems to be very expressly run-of-the-mill: two public works notices (plus one historic article that seems inapplicable for notability of the current mall). Not that many of the other incumbents in Category:Shopping centres in the Australian Capital Territory look even marginally better (Kippax Centre, Jamison Centre, Cooleman Court, ...) but one mall at a time I guess :/ -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:30, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:30, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is part of the network of pedestrianised streets in the centre of Canberra. They've fallen on hard times since the over-expansion of the Canberra Centre, but a search of Trove [2] returns a large number of articles on the street and activities there, so it should be possible to expand the article considerably. As the full archives of the Canberra Times are in Trove, I'd suggest searching there before any other nominations. Nick-D (talk) 01:48, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Woah. Yep, that should do it. Nice resource! I shall withdraw directly. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 02:08, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Draftify. You can find it at Draft:The Baker (upcoming film) Missvain (talk) 15:49, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Baker (upcoming film)

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

Future film lacking in sources, there is only one source giving significant coverage to the topic, all other are passing mentions, should be drafted until more coverage is available per WP:NFF BOVINEBOY2008 21:23, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:36, 5 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 Abigail Harrison. ✗plicit 05:37, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Mars Generation

[edit]
The Mars Generation (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 pass WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. While the article is well-sourced, the sources are almost all actually primarily about Abigail Harrison, the group's founder, who does seem to be notable. But notability is not inherited per WP:INHERITORG. This organization has received only passing mentions in independent, reliable sources, never in-depth coverage of the organization as a whole. Ganesha811 (talk) 20:57, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Ganesha811 (talk) 20:57, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Ganesha811 (talk) 20:57, 5 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 05:38, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Olakunle Jamiu Azeez

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

Covert UPE of a non notable “businessman” and “philanthropist” who lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. A before search turns out a plethora of Pr sponsored posts. The award they won are a non notable award show created by the very user who created this paid article which is intentional and falls under “walling”. Needless to say this is a brilliant WP:ADMASQ and spam. Celestina007 (talk) 20:10, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:10, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:10, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:10, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:10, 5 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 05:39, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nuremberg Plate

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

I think there's a decent chance that this is a hoax. The only citation is to Maria Theresa's "Constitutio Criminalis Theresiana", available here, which doesn't appear to yield any matches. The "Illustrated Catalogue of the Historical and World-Renowed Collection of Torture Instruments, Etc. from the Royal Castle of Nuremberg" (yes, that's a thing; available here) yields no matches for "plate" or "disc" or anything else. Other searches in both English and German reveal nothing more than information about literal Nuremberg plates, i.e. fine china. If it isn't a hoax, it still fails the GNG. If it is a hoax, it'll earn a prominent place in the hoax museum. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:40, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:40, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:40, 5 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 procedural close. The histories of the accidentally duplicated articles have been merged back together. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:58, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vertical axis wind turbine

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

Seems to be a duplicate of Vertical-axis wind turbine Mike Peel (talk) 19:23, 5 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 05:41, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of international goals scored by Harry Kane

[edit]
List of international goals scored by Harry Kane (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The page does fail WP:NOTSTATS, WP:GNG and WP:OR Dr Salvus 18:05, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:10, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:10, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:10, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:10, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Often there is analysis on a BBC match report page, an article will say how a goal is scored, this adds the depth needed for GNG, which soccerway does not provide. Govvy (talk) 10:34, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:13, 5 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 05:41, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mulky Alifa Hakim

[edit]
Mulky Alifa Hakim (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 very brief article, his career finished in 2008, so he never played in the fully professional Liga 1 (Indonesia) and doesn't have the WP:NFOOTBALL presumption of notability.

Searches, including an Indonesian search, failed to yield any significant coverage of the player. He is mentioned once in passing in Bola and once in a squad list in Go Sumbar. I'm not seeing any in-depth WP:GNG coverage. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:49, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:50, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:50, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:50, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:52, 5 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) 🐶EpicPupper (he/him | talk, FAQ, contribs) 06:16, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fahad Ali

[edit]
Fahad Ali (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:NACTOR and WP:GNG Princepratap1234 (talk) 20:53, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:54, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:54, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No votes yet to determine consensus
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jupitus Smart 17:47, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Indian Express is a popular English newspaper in India. So, it can be counted as a reliable source. But still need more references. Mommmyy (talk) 14:30, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: He is an notable actor and i have added more reliable sources and detail in his career section.
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 11:14, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ishaan Singh Manhas

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

Fails WP:GNG Princepratap1234 (talk) 20:55, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:12, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:12, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No votes yet to determine consensus
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jupitus Smart 17:47, 5 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 Kedron Township, Woodbury County, Iowa. (non-admin closure) 🐶EpicPupper (he/him | talk, FAQ, contribs) 06:08, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discord, Iowa

[edit]
Discord, Iowa (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 haven't come across many pure rail locations in Iowa, but this appears to be an example. The topos don't go back very far, and they do not name the spot, but they do show the now-abandoned rail line, with nothing around it. Other than that the only evidence I found showed this to be a post office, presumably located in the station. Mangoe (talk) 14:36, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 15:05, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:17, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Having checked all these things out, I'm still unconvinced. The plat map does show a lot of little plots in about the right area, but it doesn't show the rail line, and it also doesn't name the area "Discord"; when I compare it with Correctionville, for instance, there is no structure of roads or anything townlike besides the plots, and in 1884, if the town really existed, it should show up quite a bit better. The sign presents a different issue. I was finally able to locate it: it appears to stand where the north end of Wolf Creek Trail crosses 31 to become Mason Ave. This is a bit south of the location given in GNIS, and it is also on the opposite side of 31 from the railroad. All of this leads to the question: how did they know to put the sign there? And how did they know it was a settlement? The article containing the picture of the sign is no help, because its only authority is an article from the Sioux City Journal, and that article simply lists a bunch of "towns", saying for Discord, "PO started 10/14/1870 by George Everts and closed 1/17/1884" and giving the location, and nothing more. THere just isn't enough evidence here of an actual town. Mangoe (talk) 05:46, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:12, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:32, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Backshunt

[edit]
Backshunt (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 are no references on the article at all. Kind regards, JJK2000 (talk) 14:06, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I have never heard of this term. The article describes a shunting neck, which is a form of headshunt, for which we already have an article. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:30, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep but clarify I do get lots of hits for this, but it seems to be more commonly used in the context of mining. It doesn't help that the example layout in the article appears to be incorrect. From what I can determine, it's used in a terminal station layout as the stub piece of track to hold the motive power so it can run around the cars. And needs refs, of course. Mangoe (talk) 15:01, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:37, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:11, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:33, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vinje, Iowa

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

Once again, we have one of those Iowa "communities" that appears to be a general locale rather than a town-like settlement. There are the usual pig and cattle references, and also a soil series, and a bucketload of false hits because Vinje is apparently a pretty common Norwegian name; it is also the name of two "municipalities" (actually more like what in the USA would be called a township) in Norway. Anyway, the Post-Bulletin article discloses that the building that is now a bar has been a whole series of commercial enterprises over the years; meanwhile the Lutheran church a quarter mile to the west, which used to be in the middle of its cemetery across the road until the 1940s-'50s, is the only other building anyone says is "in" Vinje. There is a house behind the bar, and there used to be one diagonally across the intersection from the bar, but putting it all together, the "community" comes across as a fairly diffuse area of farms rather than a town-ish concentration. And while I'm at it, the supposed population of 2 is a cutesy way of the saying that the proprietors of the bar live there. Mangoe (talk) 03:13, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:02, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:02, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In addition to the bar (and its previous incarnations), Vinje also had a creamery at one point ([4] [5]), and a 1961 article about a robbery at the grocery store described it as "a community of a few homes and a grocery store". There are also a fair number of relatively recent obituaries of Vinje residents, which makes me think the population may be more than 2 after all. All and all, it seems to be a fairly small community but a community nonetheless. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 13:58, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I was able to expand the article fairly quickly. This was a platted community with a population of 23 (in 1924) which appears on a number of historic maps from the 1880s to the 1930s. Vinje was noted in its heyday. The church and cemetery in Vinje still operate, and the community still has a bar and some houses. Since notability is not temporary, we shouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Firsfron of Ronchester 00:24, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:09, 5 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 Saint-Raphaël, Var. The other merges / redirects were not commented on enough to see an obvious consensus; suggest either WP:BOLD redirect or new AfD. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:09, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stade Louis Hon

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

Fails WP:GNG and notability for stadiums and indoor arenas. ÉFC Fréjus Saint-Raphaël, the club that plays here, has never been professional. The 2013 Toulon Tournament (of which some games were hosted here) is a youth tournament and isn't notable either. Paul Vaurie (talk) 14:41, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to include several other stadiums in similar situations in one big AfD. These stadiums are:

Paul Vaurie (talk) 14:45, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Paul Vaurie (talk) 14:41, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Paul Vaurie (talk) 14:41, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Paul Vaurie (talk) 14:41, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Paul Vaurie (talk) 14:41, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:31, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Stade Gaby Robert as that is a minor, B team stadium according to the article, and redirect the other four to the parent articles as they are not independently notable but possible search terms:
Stade Louis Hon → ÉFC Fréjus Saint-Raphaël
Colmar Stadium → SR Colmar
Stade de la Montée Rouge → SO Châtellerault
Stade du Schlossberg → US Forbach
GiantSnowman 14:33, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural keep I don't like the fact you have combined stadium articles together, they should be treated and assessed individually. Govvy (talk) 10:15, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd be happy to go with Govvy's procedural keep, as they're a bit of a disparate bundle, but if we're discussing them all at this page, I can do that too. In order of listing in the nomination:
    • Merge/redirect Stade Louis Hon to ÉFC Fréjus Saint-Raphaël: not just redirect, there's an image, and mention of hosting matches in the Toulon Tournament, which the club article doesn't have;
    • Merge/redirect Colmar Stadium to SR Colmar: again, there's an image and a bit of prose needs adding to the club article;
    • Delete Stade Gaby Robert: no evidence of notability of either stadium or its tenants;
    • Redirect Stade de la Montée Rouge to SO Châtellerault: it's a one-line stub wth no content that isn't already in the club article;
    • Keep Stade du Schlossberg. The article states that US Forbach played as a professional club in Division 2 from 1957 to 1966 in that stadium, and indeed came close to gaining promotion to the top flight, which clearly takes it within the remit of the essay on "notability for stadiums and indoor arenas" cited by nominator. The article also mentions an annual international athletics meeting. A search for "meeting elite de forbach" reveals it specialises in field events, particularly the hammer throw, to which it attracts top competitors, male and female [6], [7], [8], whom I may not necessarily have heard of but athletics medal-awarding bodies have: Pawel Fajdek, Anita Wlodarczyk, etc. It's also been listed as a potential preparation centre for foreign athletics teams at the 2024 Olympics,[9] but there are a lot of those. Anyway, there's more than enough athletics-related coverage to make a redirect to the football club inappropriate, and IMO enough coverage in general to meet GNG.
  • cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:23, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Struway2: If there is enough coverage on the athletics part of the stadium, then perhaps we should keep the Stade du Schlossberg, but the Division 2 doesn't help pass the notability for stadiums and indoor arenas because it was not an FPL - the French D2 has only been pro since 1993. Paul Vaurie (talk) 09:24, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Your stadium notability page doesn't mention fully professional leagues, which are purely a player notability construct. Criterion 1 states "Currently hosts or has hosted a Professional sports team": US Forbach was a professional club for its time in Division 2, as per the stadium article, the en:wiki club article, and the fr:wiki club article.
      • Though are you sure the post-war Division 2 wasn't professional up to 1970, when the distinction between pro and amateur was abolished? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:50, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Struway2: Clubs in the Division 2 were not fully professional until 1993, per WP:FPL. So US Forbach was not "fully-professional" and therefore wasn't a professional sports team in the Division 2. Note that it wasn't like they got relegated to the Division 2, but more that they came from the CFA/Division 3 below. Paul Vaurie (talk) 09:51, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • @Paul Vaurie: I don't know if this is a language issue, mine, yours or somewhere in between: the stadium notability criteria that you link to is a stadiums and arenas project guideline and refers to hosting a professional sports team, not to hosting a team in a WP:FPL-listed football league. Professional teams can, did, and do exist in leagues that aren't fully professional. US Forbach turned pro in 1957, and lasted 9 seasons before giving up their professional licence and joining the CFA.
          • As to D2 1945 to 1970, fr:Championnat de France de football de deuxième division#Le championnat fermé (1945-1970) says that amateurs and professionals were totally separate in that period. D1 and D2 was a closed competition, without relegation. When teams dropped out, they made up the numbers from amateur clubs, which had to turn pro to join. Some didn't want to go pro, so stayed in the amateur leagues. It was only in 1970 when the distinction between amateur and professional was abolished that D2 became open to all: pro, semi-pro and amateur. But this is really a matter for Wikipedia talk:FPL, if anybody wanted to.
          • There's a three-page feature about the newly professional club from August 1957 in Miroir Sprint, lots of pictures even for non-readers of French: [10], [11], [12]. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:54, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • We've had AFDs for at least three lower league French teams recently, all with clear consensuses to redirect, or delete if there wasn't an appropriate team article. Therefore, it's perfectly fine to bundle lots of these similar, low-quality articles together, rather than having a faff of separate articles which will likely end up with similar outcomes.
      • And as long as the subject notability (not just the quality of the article) is similar, I'd absolutely agree that bundling is a valid approach. I'd have no problem with the first four as a bundle. But #5 is (IMO) different, and shouldn't have been lumped in with the other four. A better approach might have been to avoid faffing about at AfD at all, PROD #3 as an uncontroversial delete, and boldly (merge)/redirect #1, #2 and #4. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:48, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect or delete I support the rationales from GS above to redirect where there is a valid target, and delete where there is not. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:25, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As a reviewer, I'd rather have these individually nominated. I have a feeling this will sit in AfD longer than other discussions due to the bundling. Regardless, relisting this to merit more feedback since right now it's all over the board.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 16:58, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect to Saint-Raphaël, Var. This seems like the best merge target because it's a venue important to the city itself. There are multiple teams on wiki that play here (as indicated by merge proposals above), and their articles could wiki link to the city page when talking about the stadium.4meter4 (talk) 16:54, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Draftify. You can find it at Draft:UY SCUTI Missvain (talk) 15:51, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

UY SCUTI

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

Not notable per WP:FUTUREALBUM. Release date and title confirmed, but no track listing so far as I can tell, and no coverage much beyond the title and release date. I'm guessing it will be notable after it is released? Draftify? Lithopsian (talk) 18:44, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Lithopsian (talk) 18:44, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:54, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 16:54, 5 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. Not opposed to speedy renomination if desired. Missvain (talk) 15:52, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

D. K. Taknet

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

Resume/advert with a long history of COI edits and no actual sourcing Orange Mike | Talk 21:41, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:53, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:53, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 22:22, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 16:54, 5 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) 🐶EpicPupper (he/him | talk, FAQ, contribs) 06:23, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strand, Iowa

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

Once again, it appears that the GNIS folks got the location wrong. The source is the Iowa Geological Survey, a frequent visitor to these discussions; the location appears on the topos, though, as nothing more than a benchmark across the road from a house. The Strand post office, however, was not located there, as best I can determine: it was in a store across the road from the Strand Lutheran Church, which still stands, and whose website provides this page briefly discussing the store and the post office therein. The topos show the church but no town, and browsing through the other pages on the church website, I get the impression that to them Strand was a general locale and not a town per se. Mangoe (talk) 04:04, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • The 1918 Polk's Iowa State Gazetteer has "a discontinued postoffice in Lincoln township, Adams county", which agrees with the coördinates in the article. Bing Maps has a "Strand cemetery" just to the west. http://iaadams.com/strand.htm is a page maintained by a Roger Cox. It points to a 1984 History of Adams County, Iowa in turn. Google Books didn't even hint at that. Uncle G (talk) 04:48, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:23, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:23, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 17:55, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:47, 5 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 1988 Arab Cup. Sandstein 19:59, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1988 Arab Cup qualification

[edit]
1988 Arab Cup qualification (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:NOTDATABASE, this article is nothing more than a collection of game logs and standings for football tournament held over 30 years ago. User:Namiba 16:01, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. User:Namiba 16:01, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. User:Namiba 16:01, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 16:14, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy deleted under G5 by DMacks. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:55, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Morteza Jafarzadeh

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

Badly fails WP:NMUSICIAN and WP:GNG. Source assessment to follow. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:49, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:50, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:50, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://www.topnaz.com/%D8%A8%DB%8C%D9%88%DA%AF%D8%B1%D8%A7%D9%81%DB%8C-%D9%85%D8%B1%D8%AA%D8%B6%DB%8C-%D8%AC%D8%B9%D9%81%D8%B1%D8%B2%D8%A7%D8%AF%D9%87/ ? No No indication that this is a reliable source No There is a lot of information but this is not an authored article. It looks like one of those database scraping 'biography' websites. No indication of fact checking or reliability. ✘ No
https://open.spotify.com/artist/1bUSVfKlQJuWhlGrVXhuk5 No No Spotify is not considered to be RS in this situation nor is it an indicator of notability No ✘ No
https://soundcloud.com/syed-usama-agha-553502572/morteza-jafarzadeh No No Not reliable No SoundCloud profiles do not contain SIGCOV ✘ No
http://bestbiography.rozblog.com/post/3781 No No Unreliable blog post No ✘ No
https://www.badbadakha.ir/%d8%a8%db%8c%d9%88%da%af%d8%b1%d8%a7%d9%81%db%8c-%d9%85%d8%b1%d8%aa%d8%b6%db%8c-%d8%ac%d8%b9%d9%81%d8%b1%d8%b2%d8%a7%d8%af%d9%87-%d8%ae%d9%88%d8%a7%d9%86%d9%86%d8%af%d9%87-%da%a9%d8%b1%d9%85%d8%a7/ No No No Another copied and pasted 'biography' ✘ No
https://www.tarafdari.com/static/page/taxonomy/179885 ? No No Just a download link ✘ No
https://vlibrary.emro.who.int/creators/morteza-jafarzadeh/ ? ? No No content ✘ No
https://foursquare.com/imortezaa No No No Just a user profile page ✘ No
http://best-biography.ir/post/3781 No No Definitely unreliable No Just another copied and pasted spam piece ✘ No
http://wikiirani.ir/news/42103 ? ? ? Inaccessible - however the URL indicates this is a wiki, which makes it inappropriate ? Unknown
https://www.mehrnews.com/news/4688269/%D8%AF%DB%8C%D8%AF%D8%A7%D8%B1-%D8%AC%D9%85%D8%B9%DB%8C-%D8%A7%D8%B2-%D8%A7%D8%B9%D8%B6%D8%A7%DB%8C-%D8%B4%D9%87%D8%B1%D8%AF%D8%A7%D8%B1%DB%8C-%D9%85%D8%B4%D9%87%D8%AF-%D8%A7%D8%B2-%D8%AA%D8%AD%D8%B1%DB%8C%D8%B1%DB%8C%D9%87-%D8%AE%D8%A8%D8%B1%DA%AF%D8%B2%D8%A7%D8%B1%DB%8C-%D9%85%D9%87%D8%B1 This article is about a different person of the same name! ? Unknown
https://music-fa.com/artist/%D9%85%D8%B1%D8%AA%D8%B6%DB%8C-%D8%AC%D8%B9%D9%81%D8%B1%D8%B2%D8%A7%D8%AF%D9%87/ No No No Download links ✘ No
https://mrtehran.com/artist/8835 No No No Social media profile page ✘ No
https://niyazmusic.ir/185/%D8%AF%D8%A7%D9%86%D9%84%D9%88%D8%AF-%D8%A2%D9%87%D9%86%DA%AF-%D9%87%D8%A7%DB%8C-%D9%85%D8%B1%D8%AA%D8%B6%DB%8C-%D8%AC%D8%B9%D9%81%D8%B1%D8%B2%D8%A7%D8%AF%D9%87/ No No No Download links ✘ No
http://joyamusic.ir/%D8%AF%D8%A7%D9%86%D9%84%D9%88%D8%AF-%D8%A2%D9%87%D9%86%DA%AF-%D9%85%D8%B1%D8%AA%D8%B6%DB%8C-%D8%AC%D8%B9%D9%81%D8%B1%D8%B2%D8%A7%D8%AF%D9%87-morteza-jafarzadeh/ No No No mp3 download ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
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 19:58, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

La Mode Magazine

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

Yet another covert upe WP:ADMASQ created by the same editor on a non notable magazine. This particular UPE article is very much interesting because it serves as a bedrock/foundation for other UPE articles created by the same user. The magazine lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. A before search links me to literally only user generated sources, self published sources, in general just primary sources. Celestina007 (talk) 14:28, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 14:28, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 14:28, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 14:28, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 14:28, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 14:28, 5 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 Bandera News Philippines#Owned and operated. WP:BCAST is not a community-approved guideline, so WP:GNG, which is, takes precedence. Sandstein 19:58, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DXFP

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

Not enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 13:19, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 13:19, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:28, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Would be beneficial if the early participators could confirm whether they feel their reasoning persists
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 14:19, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @SportingFlyer: Correct, it's a notability recommendation. It has never been used an an exemption. It has been used as a recommendation.
Currently there is a discussion going on at WT:N about this very thing, making it a Guideline per RfC. I might request these AfDs be held until that discussion and subsequent RfC is finished so that these AfDs aren't given undue weight under the current rules while a discussion/RfC is ongoing to change the rule (NMEDIA/BCAST) we are arguing over. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 11:23, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That really shouldn't matter. The problem with this particular article is that it currently lacks the required sources under the WP:GNG to be eligible for a stand-alone article, and none have been identified to help save it. The NTC listings are clearly not significant coverage. The only other source is to the station's Facebook page. SportingFlyer T·C 13:37, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • ^This^: What Astig said. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:06, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as above. NMEDIA does not reflect community consensus, and so !votes based on it are not policy-based, as explained in the closing statement here. With that, we're left with the GNG, which this article doesn't pass. (Nobody has argued to the contrary.) If you want to carve out an exemption from the GNG (a bad idea, in my view), the way to do so is with an RfC. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:38, 12 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 2001 insurgency in Macedonia#Fighting in Kumanovo. Sandstein 19:57, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kumanovo water crisis

[edit]
Kumanovo water crisis (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 any of the notability criteria set out under WP:NNEWS. The event is mentioned in contemporary news accounts, but only in passing, and it isn't clear why it should merit its own article. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 14:11, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 14:11, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Macedonia-related deletion discussions. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 14:11, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deleted as an out of process bypass of AFC. Bearcat (talk) 15:05, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Asad Qureshi (Producer)

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

Wanted to move it to draft but a draft already there by the same name. Page recreated directly in main space after their draft was declined by User:Nearlyevil665. don't see SIGCOV about the person in multiple, tertiary reliable sources. Faizal batliwala (talk) 14:10, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Faizal batliwala (talk) 14:10, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:24, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:56, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Itthiporn Theprian

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

Effectively unsourced and no evidence of meeting WP:GNG or WP:NFOOTBALL; zero hits in Google News and a Thai search returned nothing better than Post Today and Thairath, both of which are squad lists for the Thailand national under-23 football team, which do not confer notability. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:58, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:58, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:58, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:58, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:00, 5 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:42, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Babu Badshah

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

Non-notable film, no WP:SIGCOV, does not meet WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 13:36, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:38, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:38, 5 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) 07:37, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DWJE-FM

[edit]
DWJE-FM (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 and no evidence of a WP:GNG pass; a Google search and DDG source search came back with nothing better than a Fandom Wiki. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:35, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:36, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:36, 5 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) 07:38, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DZSP-FM

[edit]
DZSP-FM (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 sources cited and couldn't find any reliable sources in a search. For example, this was a DDG search. No evidence of a passing of WP:GNG or WP:NRADIO; no evidence of a large audience, established history or being the originator of some programming. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:25, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Worth noting that Draft:DZSP-FM already exists. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:32, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:26, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:26, 5 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 19:55, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Laurel Parmet

[edit]
Laurel Parmet (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 of a young filmmaker. It does not look to me like this passes WP:FILMMAKER but it may be a borderline pass. Bringing here for consensus. Mccapra (talk) 12:10, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 12:10, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 12:10, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:38, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:23, 5 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 Bandera News Philippines. "Keep" arguments based on WP:BCAST must be disregarded as that is not a community-approved guideline. Apart from that, consensus is that WP:GNG is not met. Sandstein 19:54, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DWFJ

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

Not enough in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG. Could be a redirect, but an editor insists on recreating. Onel5969 TT me 12:45, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 12:45, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:29, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:22, 5 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) 07:36, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Patty

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

Seems to fail WP:NPOL. Curbon7 (talk) 12:26, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 12:26, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 12:26, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 12:26, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 12:26, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 12:26, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for standing as candidates in elections they did not win — the notability test for politicians is holding an NPOL-passing office, not just running for one — but this features neither a credible claim to preexisting notability for other reasons independent of a candidacy, nor the depth and geographic range of sourcing needed to treat his candidacy as more special than everybody else's candidacies. Bearcat (talk) 01:54, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:NPOL....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:43, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This guy did not even stand in the election, he dropped out before the primary. To be notable he would have actually needed to win the general election, which he did not do.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:25, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America1000 16:02, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Godspower Oshodin

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

Yet another covert UPE article on a non notable poet and “entrepreneur” who fails to satisfy any criterion from WP:POET and lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. A before search links me to mere announcements, and user generated sources. Needless to say this article is an WP:ADMASQ. There is a claim in the article that the book has garnered positive reviews but I fail to see where, that is example of WP:ADMASQ. Celestina007 (talk) 12:19, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 12:19, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 12:19, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 12:19, 5 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. Arguments from Superastig and DGG are about the same, other editors agree with both of these. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:09, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Canlubang Golf & Country Club

[edit]
Canlubang Golf & Country Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article has no significant coverage from independent sources. It does not satisfy WP:GNG. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 11:12, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:23, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:37, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:33, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:49, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Apparent advertising for non-notable organization . Of those refs mentioned just above, Ref 1 begins "Canlubang Golf & Country Club is one of my favorite clubs" and is not reliable for any purpose wherever published. Ref 2., in the same business journal, "...Club has a daxzling layout ", Ref 3 "My favorite golf course " in a trade magazine.Refs 4 and 5 are directory entries in travel guides. None of this is remotely objective coverage. There seems nothing else. DGG ( talk ) 04:53, 7 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. Some good sources found by Lord Bolingbroke; I hope he will consider adding them to the article. Mojo Hand (talk) 16:42, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Albert-Paul Granier

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

unimportant person, only very few references of little significance 20th c violin concerto (talk) 05:10, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 05:36, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 05:36, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 05:36, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tentative keep. I found one book with significant coverage of Granier's poetry through a search on Google Books.[1] Also found a translation of Granier's works that appears to have some in-depth commentary.[2] More coverage likely exists in other books and French-language sources. I would be glad to reconsider my !vote if a more thorough search does not turn up better sources. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 05:54, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Ruzich, Constance M., ed. (2021). International Poetry of the First World War: An Anthology of Lost Voices. Bloomsbury Academic. p. 32.
  2. ^ Granier, Albert-Paul (2014). Cockerels and Vultures: French Poems of the First World War. Translated by Ian Higgins. ISBN 9780952896975.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:47, 5 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 19:47, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Phyllis Gummer

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

unimportant person, only very few references of little significance 20th c violin concerto (talk) 04:56, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:59, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:59, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:41, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Neutral per WP:BASIC and what I have been able to add so far, including from GBooks - WP:BASIC states If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability, and it appears that the sources that were in the article and have since been added can may combine to sufficiently establish her notability as a composer. And per WP:COMPOSER, she appears to have written a composition that has won [...] in a major music competition not established expressly for newcomers, i.e. CAPAC in 1940. Beccaynr (talk) 04:27, 31 May 2021 (UTC) updated !vote Beccaynr (talk) 14:20, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment1) The CAPAC competition was an award exclusively to composers under 22, so for newcomers. 2) The article lists compositions but no reference where they came from. Same goes for a lot of the biographical information. 20th c violin concerto (talk) 10:40, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Despite my due diligence, I can't find anything that qualifies this subject for WP:GNG, WP:BASIC nor WP:NMUSIC. Missvain (talk) 21:12, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:47, 5 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. Notability not met. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:44, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vivek Kuchibhotla

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Vivek Kuchibhotla (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:GNG or WP:NCREATIVE. The cited sources [22], [23], [24], [25], are not considered reliable. They are published on the same date (24 April 2018) with identical content (WP:SYNDICATED).

The TOI and Rediff make only a passing mention. DC has no mention at all. Also in none of the films, they are actually credited as a "producer."

Previous AfD was closed as nom. did not provide any reason. Ab207 (talk) 08:24, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Ab207 (talk) 08:24, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ab207 (talk) 08:24, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:52, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:59, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:45, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Delete/ R2. (non-admin closure) ─ The Aafī (talk) 10:37, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion Ghana

[edit]
Inclusion Ghana (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:TOOSOON. Nothing to suggest WP:SIGCOV. nearlyevil665 10:15, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil665 10:15, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil665 10:15, 5 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. Consensus that the amended article shows notability Nosebagbear (talk) 14:47, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Schuurman

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

Article was previously submitted for AfC and declined. It was then moved by the author into mainspace. Based on the sources, I see run-off-the-mill coverage, coverage about the company and a bunch of primary sources. Might be worth looking into potential viable Dutch sources, but the current reference pool doesn't look like a pass of WP:GNG. nearlyevil665 09:41, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil665 09:41, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil665 09:41, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I created this article and submitted for AfC, it was correctly declined last week due to a lack of sufficient sources. I added lots of sources to the draft, I then saw that I could now use my account to move the draft to mainspace so I moved it over.

I do believe the subject meets the criteria cited at [[26]], so I vote **oppose/keep**.

On Wikipedia, the general inclusion threshold is whether the subject is notable enough for at least two people to have written something substantive (more than just a mention) about that subject that has been published in a reliable source.

They are the focus of regular mainstream press coverage in the Netherlands and beyond, including: - 2021 in depth interview[[27]] in the major Dutch newspaper Trouw. - 2018 article about the subject on Bloomberg News[[28]]. - 2018 article about the subject on Business Insider [[29]] - 2015 article about the subject in Dutch publication Quote [[30]]

If I add these sources to the article do you think this would be enough to meet GNG?

Many thanks for your time.

Bartholomeus1613 (talk) 11:36, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I also note that the subject is listed 10th on List_of_Dutch_by_net_worth, and if no article existed would be the only entry without one. I don't know if that is relevant or not to the discussion!

Bartholomeus1613 (talk) 11:43, 5 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:08, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fernando María Muñoz y Borbón, 2nd Duke of Tarancón

[edit]
Fernando María Muñoz y Borbón, 2nd Duke of Tarancón (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 at WP:N, WP:V, and WP:RS. No reliable source exists regarding this person. JayzBox (talk) 01:31, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • leaning delete I can find Spanish language genealogical works which appear to ratify the basics of his place in the nobility, but other than that I'm not seeing any biographical data. The paucity of info suggests a lack of notability, particularly since I'm not seeing English language works that mention him. Mangoe (talk) 03:28, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 05:18, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 05:18, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Even if it does point to a life of absolute lack of notability for any reason other than being a very minor aristocrat? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:50, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. There are people with great achievements who lack reliable sources to back our notability criteria, and viceversa. MarioGom (talk) 12:53, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 08:25, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the sources provided by User:MarioGom - which I've now added to the article - are more than enough to meet WP:GNG / ANYBIO. This nomination, like so many, could have been avoided by a better WP:BEFORE. Ingratis (talk) 11:53, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The nomination remains bang on and it's not a question of a 'better WP:BEFORE'. The guy's not notable. WP:NOTGENEALOGY. He was nobody, he did nothing, he represents nothing; he existed, presumably passed on his genes and passed. He has left no enduring monument in structure, deed or thought. Errr, that's it. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 16:01, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - 1) The nom User:JayzBox claimed that there was no reliable source about this person: this is untrue, as a better WP:BEFORE would have made clear. 2) User:MarioGom has already dealt above with your other point. The requirement at WP:ANYBIO is that "the person has an entry in a country's standard national biographical dictionary (e.g. the Dictionary of National Biography)", which is what the DBE of the Real Academia is. Ingratis (talk) 16:53, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It should not be part of our deletion process to denigrate the subject of the article, even if not a BLP. Especially when statements like he did nothing" means at the most he did nothing which I so far have been able to find" or refers to a parody list of unlikely accomplishments. DGG ( talk ) 22:28, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Redirect to Agustín Fernando Muñoz y Sánchez, 1st Duke of Riánsares - The DBe, as a national dictionary, seems to be reliable, but meeting criterion 3 of WP:ANYBIO isn't a guarantee of inclusion. WP:ANYBIO is prefaced with in the previous section: "... Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included."
The DBe entry focuses on his family, titles, and important events in his life, so we can reliably source that information, but I don't see any other information in that entry and the current Wikipedia article to show me why he is notable in his own right. Maybe Spanish-language sources can be found to expand upon this, but I'm not seeing notability at this time. Aranya (talk) 00:27, 7 June 2021 (UTC) (changed vote 03:22, 8 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 List of Bionicle media. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:14, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lego Bionicle: The Journey to One

[edit]
Lego Bionicle: The Journey to One (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Short web television series that received essentially no media coverage aside from its announcement. With no critical response to speak of, the main feature of the article - an episode history - could easily be merged to List of Bionicle media, which has a section for the TV show. Toa Nidhiki05 02:34, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Toa Nidhiki05 02:34, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:01, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 08:23, 5 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) Devonian Wombat (talk) 01:33, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Dennington

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

unimportant person, only very few references of little significance 20th c violin concerto (talk) 05:05, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:59, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:59, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 08:22, 5 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. North America1000 15:48, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ClinicalKey

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

This is advertising for Elsevier. It is basically one of yhe many special subscription arrangement for their paid-access journals, bundled with a link to medline and other material. It of not actual importance, and nobody would both commenting on it unless they had coi of some sort. Therefs , that are still accessible are PR or notices. DGG ( talk ) 07:54, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:59, 5 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. There is a clear consensus to keep, with all voters voting keep and multiple making consensus and policy based arguments. (non-admin closure) Jackattack1597 (talk) 19:48, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Groesfaen Colliery Platform railway station

[edit]
Groesfaen Colliery Platform railway station (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 as per WP:NBUILD, which states that "The inclusion of a man-made geographical feature on maps or in directories is insufficient to establish topic notability" and "Buildings ... may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability".

Four unformatted "references" comprise: a ticket offered for sale (verifies existence only); a listing in a table of contents of a book offered for sale (ditto); content from a "Derelict places" site which looks to be a user-contributed unreliable source; a link to the wrong place on a database, for which the correct link https://www.railscot.co.uk/locations/G/Groesfaen_Colliery/ gives exactly zero information. This is one of many similar articles on apparently non-notable railway halts. I suggest that a redirect to Brecon and Merthyr Tydfil Junction Railway is all that is needed. PamD 07:13, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. PamD 07:13, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. PamD 07:13, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It feels that way to be honest. I'm only editing this as it came up on my watch page when looking through my edits...I won't throw accusations out as PamD has been helpful in the past and advice but the last edit of blocking me felt like a hounding of sorts. But I won't accuse or start an argument but it feels like a form of hounding maybe not intended but a threat of blocking me does make me feel distressed. RailwayJG, 14:29, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not WP:HOUNDING at all, but pointing out basic errors that should not be introduced into the project by an editor with this amount of time served. Just sayin. -Roxy . wooF 15:44, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@AlgaeGraphix: Please take care not to appear to accuse another editor of lying: "Despite the claim made...". At the time when I nominated the article it looked like this. Which of those unformatted, uncited, links do you consider "proper references"? I described them in my nomination. Since the nomination, but before your !vote, @Djm-leighpark: has put in an hour's work to improve the article. It now has one good source, the Beeching report, which I trust Djm to have seen in hard copy as they cite the page numbers. The other "references" remain unhelpful. I'm still not convinced this station is notable. The information given in the lead is unsourced. If anyone had got a copy of the Mitchell and Smith book to hand I'm sure they would have expanded the article using whatever information is given on page 76: we saw the table of contents earlier, which verifies the existence of the station (as does the image of a passenger ticket), but I'm not sure that any editor has actually seen the page in question. As for "hounding": the creating editor seems happy to ignore all advice about editing, requests that they format references properly, etc. They seem happy to use other editors' work unacknowledged, and to add inaccurate references. I hope I have been civil in pointing out the problematic edits I've seen. PamD 15:35, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@PamD: My comment was not meant as an accusation, but merely pointing out its appearance. The tone of the messages could certainly been kinder. AlgaeGraphix (talk) 16:01, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict from 6 hours ago!) I sometimes fettle AfD'd articles to see whats there and about. Beeching:BRB is great for WP:V but would fail WP:RS. As it happened I had the pleasure a couple of years ago of meeting the late author of 0906520142 @ Chichester High School] who flogged me the same full price £18.95 (worth it for his signature!), explaining I'd need 3 more books to get full coverage of Chichester! Of more relevance here is the locations given here are section numbers not page numbers (per other books of that format); the likelihood is there will be a photo and commentary in the section which will constitute an RS, but I haven't seem that myself and it isn't in OL; though the oclc number will give some libraries. In the one in 50 chance its in a particular Chi bookshop I might have glance if I'm passing in the next month or two. If it is a redirect then Rshell cat of printworthy is reasonable, as are relevant categories. The Brecon and Merthyr Tydfil Junction Railway is a bit of an animal of a network with loads of stations. I would tend to model decisions on whether to embed stations in another article on a case by case basis and sometimes also to provide for consistency with other stations on the same line. In this case my personal preference would likely be the colliery and station content was placed on the Groes-faen article with redirects for the cats; though that does cause some wikidata froth (but I'm not volunteering to do any work). In general if all that is said is opened, closed, served a particular area & co-ordinates then its probably not deserving of an article, perhaps unless all the other stations on its linestretch had articles then that might be best for consistency. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:05, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the formatting of the references isn't grounds for deletion so I'm not sure why it has been brought up. This issue has been rectified since the deletion nomination. Railway articles are often long (like Brecon and Merthyr Tydfil Junction Railway which the nominator suggests redirecting this article to) so I think it's a good idea to keep station articles separate rather than stuff more information into the railway line articles. NemesisAT (talk) 16:09, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@NemesisAT: Which of the references do you think provides adequate sourcing to satisfy WP:GNG? PamD 16:19, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The book source is a good start. However per Wikipedia:RAILOUTCOMES railway station articles are generally kept even if they don't pass GNG. Redirecting this article to Brecon and Merthyr Tydfil Junction Railway and stuffing more info into that article would not be improving Wikipedia. NemesisAT (talk) 16:26, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest my reasons for sometimes amateur edits is sometimes down to me forgetting how to correctly source things. If I make a mess of an article or reference I do ask for help from other editors to correct my mistakes if I end up unable to fix them. Sorry that's just me though. I do try to follow the layout and use correct structuring tabs links cites etc but I sometimes mess up and can't find ways to fix unless asking for help. At least credit to me I do ask for help without appearing to just leave my articles. Once reviewed normally they are given improvements or work needing doing to them. I will work on my sandbox and try to hone my skills surprised I've made over 3k edits...RailwayJG, 17:12, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Djm-leighpark: See 1947 OS map link in talk page. Nothing visible. PamD 04:58, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@PamD That's not a low level map. My best guess (note guess) from the high level map is (1): that {{Brecon and Merthyr Railway}} is incorrect and that Groesfaen Colliery is not on a dead end branch but a loop from the dual track main line; (1a) The endpoint marked as Groesfaen Colliery on that template is in fact the tramway to a quarry and the old Wingfield Pit; and bigger guess (3): that halt platform might be in the colliery itself on that loop and not on the double track main line. A lot of guesses.... Djm-leighpark (talk) 05:37, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Actually Andy Dingley might be a person to have a clue .... Djm-leighpark (talk) 05:43, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked at Railway Passenger Stations by M.Quick and it states that that the station had opened by December 1926 closed with the line on 31st December 1962. The book Private and Untimetabled Stations by G.Croughton page 82 quotes open by 1926 closed 31 December 1962. Both books states it was unadvertised for miners (i.e. not in public timetables). Both state it was between Bargoed and Darran & Deri.Steamybrian2 (talk) 18:44, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Steamybrian2: Thanks for finding two reliable sources, that's great. Now please add them to the article, as you've got them to hand. Thanks. PamD 18:57, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Steamybrian2: Again thanks and a workers only halt was perhaps not totally uncommon in the area. I believe Template:Brecon and Merthyr Railway is misleading and the Groesfaen colliery was on a loop beside the main line (not on a branch as shown) which I believe to be double track and this raises the possibility the 1 platform halt could have been in the colliery loop while still satisfying between "Bargoed and Darran & Deri".(The main business of the line was shifting coal I believe, passengers likely secondary). In my opinion this is a possible route diagram issue dating back to the 2009 good faith complex contribution by Celtic Crusader back at [39], obviously outside the scope of this AfD. An ambiance of the line can be seen at [40] but it misses the subject of this AfD. I've noticed a group called the Welsh Railways Research Circle if someone wants to join or contact the archivist: Probably useful to join hat or get the sources mentioned if you are working on stations in this region. (but ensure you do not copyvio their stuff). Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:01, 6 June 2021 (UTC).[reply]
I have amended the opening and closing dates as requested plus some other minor amendments. I will investigate further the position of the platform/s, whether it was on a loop or whether it had 1 or 2 platforms. I support the idea of retaining the article.Steamybrian2 (talk) 11:16, 7 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 11:13, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic nationalism

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

This article was a redirect for many years and the recent attempts to change the redirect target reveal it for what it is: a personal perspective on a grab-bag of very loosely related contemporary and historical movements. The equivalent articles in other languages are equally all over the place, full of entirely different material, mostly unsourced. There is a proper article to be written about the intersection of Islam and nationalism, but it is simply false to say that it is inherently right-wing, and even to extent that there is a sub topic of Islam and right wing nationalism, this definitely isn’t it. It’s not even at the level of a bad student essay. I think TNT is appropriate. Mccapra (talk) 18:27, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 18:27, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 18:27, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t think any redirect is actually useful as the article is based on such a confused concept. It’s all absurd. If there are valid articles about Hindu nationalism and Christian nationalism that’s because there are solid sources talking about a single identifiable and discussable phenomenon. That doesn’t mean we need to create articles on Buddhist nationalism, Shinto nationalism etc just to be even handed. I think there probably is a valid topic here, but this article just isn’t a credible attempt at it. Mccapra (talk) 21:08, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is interesting to note that there was a similar debate on the deletion of the article on French Wikipedia, and that despite the defaults pointed out by the supporters of the deletion (the same arguments as here), a majority (6 against 3) believes that there have been abundant secondary sources for 15 years and that the concept is used in political science. --Martopa (talk) 12:13, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The fr.wiki discussion cites instances where the term is used. That the term is used is not in dispute. Whether the term is used to refer to a consistent body of ideas and philosophies is in dispute. The whole point is that different authors use the term to mean different things when discussing specific countries. Mccapra (talk) 12:43, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 22:28, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The current article looks to be basically OR (and I've tagged it as such) but there do appear to be academic sources discussing Islamic nationalism as such, e.g. this journal article, and in particular contexts a chapter on "Egyptian Islamic nationalism" here, a Duke PhD on Islamic nationalism in the Philippines, plus some chapters discussing it in the Iranian context here. I note that there's also an existing Muslim nationalism in South Asia article. The problem is that the articles I linked are discussing different phenomena though so I'm not convinced that these amount to notability for it as a single topic. —Nizolan (talk · c.) 15:16, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, I think that’s the key issue. The term is used to mean somewhat different things in different contexts so some kind of high level overview article may be possible, but it would be very different to this. Mccapra (talk) 16:48, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 05:32, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nizola has shown that there is no coherent topic to write about here, failing WP:SYNTH. The different concepts labeled as "Islamic nationalism", if notable, should have their own articles. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:59, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as Nizola has shown that this is not a coherent topic and trying to make it one fails WP:SYNTH.VR talk 04:07, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete move to draft, restore redirect The article itself looks really bad, it's poorly sourced and poorly written. I recommend moving this to a draft page if the user that wrote this is interested to fix and/or expand the article, and I recommend restoring the redirect until this gets fixed. Nizolan proved the point in some way or another so I agree with them, it fails WP:SYNTH. --Vacant0 (talk) 11:11, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:SYNTH and oppose draftify. Best to start completely over then try to salvage an article from a bad seed.4meter4 (talk) 23:06, 12 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) 09:14, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Zhang Milin

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

The article was tagged notability but was removed by the article creator. It is likely that it will be deproded so I put this into AFD. There is not enough reliable sources found when performing WP:BEFORE. The only cited reliable source in the article does not address the subject directly so it doesn't meet WP:GNG. Meets none of the criterion listed at WP:PROF or WP:BIO Sun8908 Talk 05:18, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Sun8908 Talk 05:18, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Sun8908 Talk 05:18, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The Zhang Milin described here, of Tsinghua University, appears to be the one described by this Google Scholar profile and this IEEE profile. She should not be confused with the Zhang Milin of Harbin Engineering University who (as part of a large group of authors) has written heavily cited publications on graphene supercapacitors. There is no evidence that the nominator found any of this in WP:BEFORE, but regardless, I don't think she passes WP:PROF — she has citation counts on a good track, but not yet at the level of impact required for #C1, and the other criteria appear very unlikely. There's a big language barrier for me to search for sources in Chinese, though, so if someone who can read Chinese turns up evidence of WP:GNG-type notability instead, I'm open to changing my mind. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:25, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:28, 5 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. Consensus that deletion is warranted on a mixed basis of notability issues and promotional content beyond ready cleanup Nosebagbear (talk) 14:51, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hom Nguyen

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

This page has been subject to so much promotion and exaggeration that it's hard to tell which end is up. As I worked on cleaning up this article (see an earlier version), I found that the large majority of the sources and claims were inflated or false. For example, the artist apparently exhibited at the Palais de Tokyo, which is highly prestigious, however when you look into it you discover that it was a show in a rental space at the Palais de Tokyo, and the "show" was a collaboration with a luxury luggage maker. Many, many sources are paid items or not independent. He seems to donate his work a lot, and this generates publicity, generally from the organization he donated to. There are no museum collections and no solo exhibitions in good venues. Overall I see one or two genuine reviews (the Bangkok post, for example, is decent, but an interview), and a whole lot of inflation and promotion. Fails WP:NARTIST. --- Possibly (talk) 05:17, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. --- Possibly (talk) 05:17, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. --- Possibly (talk) 05:17, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. --- Possibly (talk) 05:17, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. --- Possibly (talk) 05:17, 5 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 Transportation in the San Francisco Bay Area#Bridges. Plausible search term, WP:ATD. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:15, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

San Francisco bridge

[edit]
San Francisco bridge (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 entries with any form of "San Francisco Bridge", invalid dab. MB 04:59, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:43, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:44, 5 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. Functionally everyone agrees it meets BCAST, but no keep !voters have indicated it meets GNG. As such, this AfD has pivoted on whether an explanatory supplement that endeavours to carve out a partial SNG exception to the GNG (a la NPROF) is sufficient policy basis.

The phrasing of GNG indicates it applies without explicit exemption, and an explanatory supplement just does not have capability to grant that.

However, should NMEDIA be promoted to a guideline in any form similar to its current state, this article would immediately be eligible for re-creation as if soft-deleted. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:03, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DZRI

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

Not enough in-depth coverage to show that it passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 02:09, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 02:09, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:01, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 02:52, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it's only a "recommendation," then it clearly must comply with WP:GNG, meaning we need reliable secondary sources in order to show it's eligible for a stand-alone article. Even if it becomes a guideline, the vast majority of guidelines either require the GNG to be met, are written in such a way that GNG will be met if the guideline is met, or provide even stricter guidance than merely meeting GNG, so having this become a guideline isn't really relevant for this discussion considering there aren't enough sources to justify a stand-alone article. SportingFlyer T·C 13:55, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. NMEDIA doesn't reflect community consensus, so I'll simply apply the more sound GNG, which this article doesn't pass. (This, I note, does not appear to have been disputed.) Unless NMEDIA is endorsed by the community at an RfC, it doesn't present a valid reason to keep the article. (Carving out wide-ranging exceptions to the GNG is usually a bad idea, in my view.) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:04, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:57, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Schedl

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

Old unreferenced BLP tagged in January 2018. The only external links provided are to the subject's bio and a list of faculty members on his employer's web site. G-searches turned up plenty of incidental mentions (research papers in journals etc) but no significant coverage in reliable sources. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 02:11, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:45, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:45, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Total citations: avg: 7029, med: 2694, Schedl: 10613.
Total papers: avg: 106, med: 48, S: 203.
h-index: avg: 34, med: 26, S: 58.
Top citations: 1st: avg: 676, med: 350, S: 476. 2nd: avg: 398, med: 256, S: 327. 3rd: avg: 292, med: 186, S: 312. 4th: avg: 250, med: 160, S: 281. 5th: avg: 214, med: 134, S: 244.
Top first-author: avg: 351, med: 148, S: 165.
Meets C1. JoelleJay (talk) 16:11, 7 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) 07:34, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Myers Snagg Aceto

[edit]
Elizabeth Myers Snagg Aceto (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 notability HeinzMaster (talk) 01:29, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. HeinzMaster (talk) 01:29, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. HeinzMaster (talk) 01:29, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this was only up for an hour before it was AfD'd. However, the nomination seems correct as I could not find any WP:SIGCOV at all. She illustrated one book, which is not enough on its own. I looked for exhibitions, reviews and collections (the triad of art practice?) but saw nothing. GNG fail. The creator should not be discouraged, as it was a good attempt... but have a look at WP:GNG and WP:NARTIST as these are the key policies for determining what is kept and what is not.--- Possibly (talk) 02:25, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:46, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:47, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete per A7. (non-admin closure) --MuZemike 18:10, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Berdia sadeghi

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

HeinzMaster (talk) 01:27, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. HeinzMaster (talk) 01:27, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. HeinzMaster (talk) 01:27, 5 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. Good arguments for keeping and deleting, about the same. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:07, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

KeepTruckin

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

None of the references here are sufficiently substantial 3rd party reliable published sources, to show notability , but rather press releases or blogs or postings or mere notices DGG ( talk ) 09:12, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:26, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:26, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:27, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the feedback. Added references from more third-party sources, including one from CNBCTV that helps establish notability. Generally improved the article by adding categories, see also section, and making it not read like an advertisement. Let me know if this can be improved further! Waisybabu ( talk ) 9:52, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 12:02, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Reliable independent sources with significant coverage have been added since nomination to meet GNG Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:39, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NCORP requires significant *in-depth* coverage with "Independent Content" which most of the references fail.
    • Youtube Interview with the CEO is not Independent Content, fails ORGIND
    • Freightwaves announcement on "nominations" for their award only lists the logo and name, not in-depth, fails CORPDEPTH
    • Forbes "sites" fails as a reliable source.
    • Techcrunch article is entirely based on a company announcement with all information provided by the company/founder, same information and even the same quotes from the CEO as many other similar articles such as this exact same article in Angel Investors, this from Crunchbase and even their own blog post, fails ORGIND
    • this from Forbes is Forbes announcing the candidates for their Cloud100 in list form, no in-depth information, fails CORPDEPTH
    • This second from TechCrunch is what we refer to as an "advertorial", a promotional company profile with all information provided by the company masquerading as news. Fails ORGIND
    • This review in TechRadar is pretty good. Except it's very odd that the journalist's profile says he writes on a wide range of topics including "Gadgets, smartphones, reviews, games, software, apps, deep tech, AI, and consumer electronics". No mentions of trucking experience - so how could he actually review the software? Then we see that he says in the review "Based on a quite a few reviews left by different verified users online ..." and you realise that nowhere in the review does the journalist recount any of his own personal experience. This is a sham review, all positive and listing every possible feature - essentially its promotion and reads like a company brochure. Fails ORGIND
    • This next from FreightWaves is part of the promotion around the "relaunch" of KeepTruckin towards the end of 2020,with a new software platform launched earlier that same month. No "Independent Content", fails ORGIND
    • WSJ and CCJ articles are based entirely on an announcement of funding, no "Independent Content", fails ORGIND
    • VentureBeat article based entirely on an announcement of funding, no Independent Content, fails ORGIND
None of the references are anything more than company-produced PR. Fair play to their marketing dept but it doesn't qualify for the criteria for establishing notability as per NCORP. HighKing++ 18:39, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep I randomly selected two article and found them both to meet the GNG. The techradar article is great. Yes, I see the comments above, and yes, the author appears to have gathered information from a number of sources rather than used this as a truck driver. But so what? Nothing in the GNG says that's not a valid way to write an article. The WSJ article also seems fine. It comments on the financial situation and products of the company. HK and I often disagree about what counts as reliable and independent. This is another case of that. Hobit (talk) 21:39, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We use NCORP for organizations, it provides the correct way to interpret sources for notability. Sources must meet ORGIND *and* CORPDEPTH. A closing admin will be aware of this and probably discount your !vote if you're using GNG instead. HighKing++ 11:41, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think your views about things like "he appeared to have never used it, so his reviews don't count" can be said to be related to the SNG vs GNG issue here. Hobit (talk) 13:54, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
True on that level but you're overlooking the fact that the "review" is about the product with no "Independent Content" nor "In-depth information" on the company, the topic of this article. You're also ignoring you based your !vote on the WSJ article which deffo fails NCORP. So me pointing out that you're measuring the references against the wrong guideline is relevant. HighKing++ 13:43, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I really doubt any "vote" invoking GNG will be discounted. Both SNG and GNG cover the same issue here: are available sources sufficient or not? For some of our editors even few paragraphs of independent coverage in a reliable source is more than enough, others have much higher requirements. Pavlor (talk) 14:48, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say they'll deffo be discounted based on your assumption that "even few paragraphs of independent coverage in a reliable source is more than enough". That waffley garbage is precisely the reason why Wikipedia is stuffed with promotional articles on organizations/products and why those same organizations treat Wikipedia as their own promotional resource and why NCORP has been tightened up specifically to require clear-cut "Independent Content" and "In-depth information". HighKing++ 13:43, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:22, 5 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.