Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 November 5

< November 04 November 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. clpo13(talk) 22:40, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

David Radosavljević

[edit]
David Radosavljević (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 read the Serbian sources but placing 5th in a national reality show doesn't demonstrate notability expected for musicians on Wikipedia. Liz Read! Talk! 23:50, 5 November 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:05, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Boost Drinks

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Boost Drinks (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 contains a lot of sources, but all of them seem to be some combination of promotional, too closely connected, or insignificant. A WP:Before was admittedly something I couldn't do in depth, because I don't live in the United Kingdom and most of my searches either came up with nothing or results for Boost (drink), an American company. I could be wrong, but I'm not seeing significant enough coverage of this company—and the article itself feels vaguely promotional, going into detail about flavours and employees where it doesn't seem necessary. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 17:22, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Like TLC I also had problems doing a BEFORE. The Yorkshire Post and Times articles are mostly about the CEO, but they do of course mention the company too. The Irish News article is about the company, so that's one sigcov in RS. The rest are not helpful for proving notability -- they're all routine coverage and in niche publications (Scottish Grocer), affiliated (Leeds United), directories (gov.uk) online retailers of the company's products (Approved Foods), and really kind of iffy stuff that looks like press release publishers, etc. Really the Times, Yorkshire Post, and Irish News are apparently the sum total of non-routine/non-niche coverage, and two of those are about the CEO and one of those two is pretty close to being an interview. Maybe that's enough to just tip the scales? To me it's not quite enough yet, but I'm willing to be convinced. —valereee (talk) 18:58, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I know I shouldn’t be mentioning WP:OTHERSTUFF, but we have an article on Boost (chocolate bar) (which I would argue is as notable as Boost Drinks) which only has four sources. A lot of the articles related to food brands and companies on Wikipedia have hardly any sources but that doesn’t mean they should be deleted (examples: Wotsits, Pom-Bear, Koala's March, Stimorol, Duc d'O, Dunbia, Bee Cheng Hiang, etc). Sahaib3005 (talk) 20:15, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sahaib3005, it's not the number of sources. It's the number of quality sources. What I (and most editors) want to see are at least 3 incidents of significant coverage in reliable sources, at least two of which are neither local nor niche. Four is more than enough if they're high-quality. —valereee (talk) 20:19, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    But, yeah, that candy bar may not be notable. It's tricky when you're searching from an area that the product isn't sold in, so maybe someone in those areas can find some sig cov. —valereee (talk) 20:23, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, clpo13(talk) 22:53, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep Article is in a poor state, but I believe that the sum total of the coverage just scrapes over the threshold for notability. MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:27, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There appears to be enough content in this Yorkshire Post article. Coupled with everything else I think notability has been established. NemesisAT (talk) 23:45, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @MrsSnoozyTurtle and @NemesisAT, which three sources do you think provide support for notability for the company? The Yorkshire Post and Times articles are mostly about the CEO, The Irish News article is about the company, so that's one sigcov in RS. The rest are not helpful for proving notability -- they're all routine coverage in very small niche publications that aren't themselves notable enough to have an article (Scottish Grocer), affiliated (Leeds United), directories (gov.uk) online retailers of the company's products (Approved Foods), and really kind of iffy stuff that looks like press release publishers, etc. What are you seeing that would be three instances of sigcov in RS about the company? —valereee (talk) 18:07, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I too am interested in WP:THREE best sources. HighKing++ 21:35, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. That means, nothing that relies on company information or announcements or interviews, etc. None of the references in the article meet the criteria.
For example, someone mentioned the Yorkshire Post article above - this article discusses Yorkshire as a place for entrepreneurs and lists four business to make its point. The "case study" on Boost is really a puff piece with all the information provided by the founder, fails WP:ORGIND. Someone else mentioned the Irish News reference which describes providing grants to local community groups and where Boost appears to be involved. It doesn't provide any in-depth information on the company, just a quote from a company exec, fails WP:CORPDEPTH. The other references are similarly lacking in either in-depth info on the company or on Independent Content.
I have been unable to find any references that meet NCORP criteria, topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 21:35, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@HighKing:, @Valereee:. There is the The Telegraph, The Yorkshire Post, The Yorkshire Post (2), The Times, The Irish News, The Irish News (2), Belfast Telegraph, Belfast Telegraph (2). All those should be enough to meet the notability guidelines. Sahaib3005 (talk) 22:19, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Telegraph story is an interview with the CEO, which wouldn't be something that can prove the notability of the company. The first Yorkshire Post is also a story about the CEO, not the company. The second YP is an article about business in Yorkshire, Boost is one of multiple businesses mentioned, maybe significant enough to put an otherwise borderline case over the hump, if we're being really generous, so that's one, but the other two need to be very strong indeed, and both neither local nor niche. The Times is a story about the CEO. The first Irish News is significant coverage of the company in a RS, so for me that's two. The second IN is a bare mention in an article about a fundraiser. The first Belfast Telegraph is behind a paywall for me but appears to be generated from a press release? Ditto second BT? This is why we ask for WP:THREE. Your three best sources, the three that you feel clearly prove notability. When you give us those three and just those three, it makes it easier for other editors to assess notability. If we instead have to wade through nine, some of which are iffy for proving notability, it can make some of us feel a bit cranky. :D —valereee (talk) 13:39, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Sahaib3005 When you say " All those should be enough to meet the notability requirements ", I'm not sure if you mean that *each* reference meets the notability criteria of if you are considering them *collectively*. I've already pointed out in my !vote above that neither the Yorkshire Post not the Irish News references meet NCORP. But if you mean they should be considered collectively, then no, NCORP (specifically the WP:SIRS section) says "An individual source must meet all of these criteria to be counted towards establishing notability". I also disagree with valereee's generosity in saying that the second YP reference might squeeze past the criteria - all of the info is provided by the company or the CEO, fails ORGIND. The second Irish News reference also relies entirely on the marketing info provided by the CEO and the company. It is a puff piece and fails ORGIND. HighKing++ 14:33, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue that the sources that are about the CEO also cover the company in depth (but that is just my opinion). Sahaib3005 (talk) 16:11, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, lets assume they do - but because all of the information is being provided by the CEO therefore a PRIMARY source with no opinion/analysis/etc subsequently provided by the journalist/author the article fails ORGIND (which is what I said above). HighKing++ 18:55, 9 November 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:06, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nelly Drell

[edit]
Nelly Drell (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 artist does not meet WP:NARTIST. The two current references are weak. I cannot find any reliable sources. She has not been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, or won significant critical attention, or been represented within the permanent collections of any notable galleries or museums. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 22:49, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 22:49, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 22:49, 29 October 2021 (UTC))[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, clpo13(talk) 22:50, 5 November 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 00:08, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spine (emulator)

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

Does not appear to pass WP:GNG. I could only find one article in a secondary source about the emulator, which isn't enough to establish notability. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 22:02, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TechSpot is a known unreliable source per WP:VG/RS and both of these sources are WP:RUNOFTHEMILL-esque articles. The Pinput one boils down to "It exists. It runs ~300 games." This is not significant coverage. IceWelder [✉] 13:28, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
TechSpot is in the "Inconclusive" section of VGRS, not the "Unreliable" section. While yeah I'm not happy with the sources either, the emulator is the main topic of all 3 articles which in my view is still SIGCOV, making this emulator just barely pass the bar for GNG. Jumpytoo Talk 20:33, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:35, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Desi Music Factory

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

Promospam. No sign of meeting WP:NCORP. More than 100 sources, most of them refspam, and nothing that's actually about the company. bonadea contributions talk 20:36, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • That would have been an option if the problem had only been with the writing or something else that could be fixed by rewriting and revising the text. However, when a topic is not notable, no amount of editing can make it so. --bonadea contributions talk 08:59, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Acousmana 16:33, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seth Price

[edit]
Seth Price (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:NOTABILITY per WP:ARTIST, seems WP:SOAP-like Acousmana 20:31, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep an artist doesn't get a survey exhibition (that's something like a retrospective, but for a living, working artist, whose oeuvre is still growing, but more comprehensive than than a solo exhibition ) in the Stedelijk Museum if they're not notable. Also, there are plenty of sources, so the GNG is met. Why this article would be WP:SOAP isn't clear to me. It doesn't read particularly promotional. FWIW, I maintain a list of weasel words that I (using a script) check articles against, and the only match I found was "prominent", but that wasn't used to describe Price. Vexations (talk) 22:12, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep this is ridiculous. Six works in the collection of MoMA. [2] Two at the Whitney. [3] We shouldn't be wasting our time with this. @Acousmana: I respectfully suggest you actually read NARTIST before you cite it. Theredproject (talk) 04:00, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The subject's solo shows at the ICA and the Stedilijk plus inclusion of works in the Venice Biennale and dOCUMENTA are sufficient for WP:NARTIST criterion 4. Any particular concerns about tone in the article are a matter for normal editing. AllyD (talk) 08:16, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Acousmana 19:04, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Molly Soda

[edit]
Molly Soda (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:NOTABILITY per WP:ARTIST, seems WP:SOAP-like Acousmana 20:30, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Acousmana 19:08, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rafaël Rozendaal

[edit]
Rafaël Rozendaal (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:NOTABILITY per WP:ARTIST, seems WP:SOAP-like Acousmana 20:28, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy keep - It seems a BEFORE search was not conducted prior to nomination. Artist clearly meets criteria #4 of NARTIST, as their work in included in several notable museum collections. Also clearly meets GNG. Netherzone (talk) 23:09, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 11:04, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wolfgang Galow

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

Notability concerns. Doesn't meet any SNG for either photography or chess. 2100 ELO is respectable for an amateur but far below grandmaster skill. Only sourcing regarding photography appears to be his own website, no substantial coverage found. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 22:07, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 22:07, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 22:07, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Looking around I'm seeing a few hits on the name, but they're essentially entirely photo credits in articles about other chess-related things. The German-language page is a little bit more robust, but even then its bibliography is chiefly primary sources. /Tpdwkouaa (talk) 23:24, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 06:22, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:58, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 20:19, 5 November 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. clpo13(talk) 22:38, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Banepa Valley School

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

Unreferenced since its creation in 2007. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. I can not find any sources online except database listings. Bada Kaji (talk • श्रीमान् गम्भीर) 19:07, 5 November 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. clpo13(talk) 22:39, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Controlled Environments Magazine

[edit]
Controlled Environments 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)

This Magazine does not appear to exist anymore based on the removed URL now linking to a pronographic website. See This Link. Wxman28 (talk) 18:30, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The fact that the magazine is no longer published is not of itself a reason to delete the page. There are articles on many subjects which are no longer current. If it is deemed that there was enough coverage to demonstrate notability when it existed, a note of its closure could be included. The magazine's Facebook page https://www.facebook.com/ControlledEnvironmentsMagazine reports that ABM, the parent company of Controlled Environments, has ceased operations, giving a link to https://archive.foliomag.com/advantage-business-marketing-media-shuts-down. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:38, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The shutdown in also mentioned at https://www.mondotimes.com/2/topics/5/62/15255. --David Biddulph (talk) 07:09, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Looking over wikipeida policies, I do realize that my initial reasoning for deletion proposal is not a reason to delete; I am pretty sure there are discontinued magazines more famous than this one that have there own articles. However, like the users above me, they note that a quick google search reveals only a few primary sources that cover the article, and no secondary sources cover it. Based on this, it likely does not meet WP:NOTABILITY. --Wxman28 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 14:31, 12 November 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. clpo13(talk) 22:41, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Community Banana Stand

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Community Banana Stand (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 is nothing more than advertising for an obvious Amazon brand marketing campaign. All the sources are rewritten press releases at best or covert paid marketing at worst, and this bleeds into the article which is filled with Amazons 'quirky' neologisms for workers and other 'facts' directly from the company, regurgitated without question. The article is unsalvageable, it is unlikely to ever have any value as a wiki page and as a result it should be deleted. Wikipedia is not part of Amazon's reputational washing machine. Macktheknifeau (talk) 17:20, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Public relations releases made into articles aren't reliable sources. Macktheknifeau (talk) 03:14, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The nominator has provided no evidence that the sources are "rewritten press releases" or "covert paid marketing". The news articles are rather balanced, covering both positive and negative reactions to Amazon's campaign. Some people take their interpretation of WP:NCORP too far and think that anything that doesn't trash the company is corporate propaganda. Amazon is a well-known company and there is going to be organic interest from journalists and readers in what it does. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:09, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: For the record: the sources currently in the article might be what the proposer says. There are other sources available. —¿philoserf? (talk) 14:39, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:37, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Rusling

[edit]
Paul Rusling (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, no claim to notability, promotional autobiography. Nothing to establish notability in a quick WP:BEFORE. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:48, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm uncertain which areas one makes a response in, the page seems to be a programmers playground and Im not familiar with a lot of the acronyms and codes, being only a poor lowly writer (albeit one with a long history of published articles and books).

The sudden avalanche of 'delete' requests about my Wikipedia entry was a surprise. It seems to be linked to a flurry of complaints on the Radio Caroline Wiki-page, where one individual is attempting to rewrite history, and is busy ammending Wiki files. I may be collateral, as I wrote a book called the Radio Caroline Bible, which was republished, just days earlier. A lone detractor tried to suppress publication, and rewrote the Radio Caroline page on Wiki; I emphasise that I have not participated in that battle but am pleased to see its restored and the 'agitator' has been banned.

My own entry meets the fundamental principles of the 'Five Pillars'. I understand its inclusion as it DOES meet the requirements of ANY:BIO (in three countries) and the 'notable' requirements of significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other and independent of the subject. The links to published works such as books are all factual books Ive written, about radio. These are histories of various radio stations, (Caroline & Laser) and on topics of radio, such as programming, format and technical nature. These are all non-fiction, factual and not about views or opinions. For some titles I am acting as editor, rather than actual writer.

I check the Wikipedia page for malicious tampering at least once a year, but am aware that it is consulted by others, in the true use of Wikipedia as a digital encyclopaedia. Its certainly not there as a vehicle for self-promotion, but to disseminate useful information that is verifiable, unique and likely to be of interest.

As a regular researcher, I'm always grateful that the Wiki army of volunteers has not only assembled such as wide collection of links and background facts, but that many wiki-editors tend the files to ensure the highest standards are followed. If the edits I have made to my own entry are inappropriate I am delighted for them to be amended, but feel the site is denuded if facts about my work are stripped out for no real reason.

Thanks for everyone's time on this. Paul Rusling PaulRusling (talk) 15:01, 11 November 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by PaulRusling (talk • contribs) [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) 16:27, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Carrie Lam (actress)

[edit]
Carrie Lam (actress) (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 prodded the article but it was removed. I am not convinced that this person meets the notability guidelines. Sahaib3005 (talk) 15:54, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't out of bad faith. Just a quick Google search apparently isn't by itself sufficient for Prod. 219.77.112.254 (talk) 16:17, 12 November 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. A marginal case, but there is clearly no consensus to delete the article. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:07, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mohan Lal Lohia

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

Less notable father of a more notable son - attempted notability by reverse inheritance. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:09, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:09, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:09, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm not seeing any in-depth reliable online English sources, though I don't know the local language. There does seem to be scope for creating an article about the family, to which this could be redirected. --Paul_012 (talk) 13:29, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep... Co-founded a significant company [10], and is named in the Panama papers. Whispyhistory (talk) 15:54, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd thought that WP:INHERITORG also meant that individuals do not inherit notability from companies - and that individual notability still needs to stand on its own two feet of the basis of significant, independent and secondary coverage. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:33, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:23, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:40, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 15:21, 5 November 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. clpo13(talk) 22:45, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semmes Motor Company

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

Complete lack of notability. Qwirkle (talk) 15:05, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe. The court case there seems to have had real effects though. Qwirkle (talk) 16:27, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for being vigilant. However, please check Commonscat:Semmes Motor Company, before coming to overzealous conclusions. Please keep. --NearEMPTiness (talk) 23:18, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Commons is not an indicator of notability; there are plenty of unused logos and other images that are not used. This may exist in picture but not may necessarily satisfy our GNG and/or SNG. Sennecaster (Chat) 23:29, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Being a total solution provider for "painting, trimming and repairing of delivery trucks" is more similar to a modern car tuning company, i.e. a car manufacturer or systems integrator like Westfalia-Werke, instead of a modern dealership. This article reflects this, and should therefore please be kept, without implying that this would be a precedence to upload an article on each dealership such as Semmes Motors, Inc. (which is only notable because of the court case). NearEMPTiness (talk) 08:10, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OR at its most blatant…and quite likely wrong, to boot. Qwirkle (talk) 15:00, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:13, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ángel Castelli

[edit]
Ángel Castelli (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:BASIC. ROTM doctor whose page only exists because the author (now blocked for sockpuppeteering) was on a quest to make Wikipedia their own genealogy website (WP:NOTGENEALOGY). References to him in the sources are all trivial. Could qualify under WP:G5 but another user made some edits, so I went with AfD because this figure is not notable. Pilaz (talk) 13:04, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Not notable based on current article, and written entirely from Google Books snippets which at least in one case bastardized context. Three refs provide only passing mention. Fourth looks like a self-published biography of his son, written by a descendant, and still the snippets I can see are passing. That said, the first current reference is to a journal review of recent historical writings of some sort, and has the text: . . . en 1961, y "Angel Castelli Salomon, medico y boticario de Buenos Aires en el Siglo XVIII" en el mismo año, an apparent reference to a 1961 biography with this man as its subject - that could represent notability (or it could be written by the same self-pubishing descendant). Likewise, another snippet I found begins what appears to be a detailed biography of the man, but no way to tell if independent of the 1961 title, plus genealogy articles like this decide whom to describe based solely on whether they belong to the subject family, so inclusion doesn't really indicate personal notability. May turn out this person is notable, but any article would need complete rewriting to replace this inapproriate Google snippet-based version anyhow. Agricolae (talk) 15:57, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- I can see nothing in the article to demonstrate notability. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:21, 5 November 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 Colombia–Uruguay relations. Daniel (talk) 22:55, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Colombia, Montevideo

[edit]
Embassy of Colombia, Montevideo (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. Embassies are not inherently notable. There is a lack of third party coverage of this embassy, the article even has google maps as a source. LibStar (talk) 05:24, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:59, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:59, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uruguay-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:59, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 14:10, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:44, 5 November 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. Randykitty (talk) 17:34, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Performance Clothing

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

Propose for deletion per WP:NOTE, specifically SIGCOV. Appears all web references used within this article are dead. WP:BEFORE search did not turn up anything substantial. SkippyKR (talk) 17:19, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:26, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:26, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Clearly doesn't meet any notability guideline.Brayan ocaner (talk) 19:12, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unsure: I have updated the URL of their website in the article.[11] A Google search for '"Performance Clothing" Llandrindod Wells' gives the websites of several schools, for which they are authorised uniform suppliers. Google Streetview at their address indicates that they occupy a substantial building that has their name on the front, indicating that they are not just a small shop.[12] I have not found anything substantial to confirm notability, but this could be because their name is not very distinctive for web searches. Verbcatcher (talk) 19:23, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The company appears to be associated with professional motorsport companies as well, including Citroen, Toyota, and Hyundai. That said, I would argue against the idea that being a clothing vendor for other major companies nessecerally indicates notability. SkippyKR (talk) 20:07, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Who they supply is not an indication of notability - regardless of high profile their clients are. The only time when their clients affect notability is if there are reliable, secondary sources which discuss the company because of their clients. SSSB (talk) 10:18, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 19:31, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- Does not meet notability guidelines. Notable clients can not be considered as a criterion of notability.Mommmyy (talk) 08:46, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The web references might be dead, but it's possible that there still exist print versions of those articles considering that Western Mail is a newspaper. Per WP:PUBLISHED, an archived copy of the media must exist. It is convenient, but by no means necessary, for the archived copy to be accessible via the Internet. As a result, I really am unsure that this fails WP:NCORP, given that such a newspaper is very likely to have a print archive. I'll look into it more to try to find those articles, though I can't !vote for now until I search a bit deeper. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:39, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. After a quick check, there are archives of print sources that provide WP:SIGCOV to the business itself:
    1. There are archived versions of the Western Mail story available via WP:LIBRARY. The article, written in Western Mail on 18 March 18 2005, provides in-depth coverage of the business and describes it as "one of the world's leading distributors for a range of rally and Formula 1 motor racing teams." There's even a quote from then-Economic Development Minister Andrew Davies regarding the business's success.
    2. Another source referred to in the article is an article titled "Expansion drive by motor clothing firm; Sportswear maker to recruit at new site", which was published in the Daily Post on 16 March 2005. The source, also available through WP:LIBRARY, provides in-depth coverage of Performance Clothing UK Ltd to Wales, following a grant issued from the "Welsh European Funding Office".
These two sources, taken together, appear to satisfy the standard laid out in WP:ORGCRIT of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. I was able (through Gale) to find a database entry for a third reference, titled "Performance Clothing is merchandise partner to European Rallycross C'ship", published by Athena Information Solutions Pvt. Ltd. in 2013. But, I can't actually access the material and, as that might well be a press release, I don't feel comfortable accounting for it in an analysis here. While it's rather hard to find other sources on this company—the company's SEO doesn't dominate "performance clothing" searches and Newspapers.com doesn't return any results for "Performance Clothing UK"—the nom's assertion that the web references are dead doesn't seem to hold water given the accessibility of the same sources via WP:LIBRARY. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:04, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a link to the Western Mail story.[13] SailingInABathTub (talk) 00:46, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also available in Wales Online. HighKing++ 21:25, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:35, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:20, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Artist-scientist

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

Only source doesn't even mention the term, looks like WP:OR to me. Paradoctor (talk) 12:32, 5 November 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. clpo13(talk) 22:48, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Leader of the Opposition (Norway)

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

"Leader of the Opposition" is not a political office in Norway. If foreign sources say they are, the sources are wrong and not reliable on this topic. The whole concept is just patently flawed. The current cabinet of Norway has three oppositions parties to the left and four opposition parties to the right, none of whom have a unified "leader". Not even does the left-wing parties have a leader among them, nor the right-wing opposition parties. Nor is there any institutional or ceremonial role connected to a "Leader of the Opposition" (I believe the UK may have such a formal role?). Geschichte (talk) 21:09, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 21:12, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 21:12, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. As I said, Solberg and Støre have never been Leader of the Opposition, as the opposition has no leader, so it should have never been in the infobox. While Erna Solberg is currently in opposition, she is certainly no leader of the Red and Socialist Left parties that are also in opposition, and she is not a leading figure for the Progress Party either. Geschichte (talk) 07:13, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. “Leader of the Opposition” has sometimes been referred to, but like Geschichte mentioned, it’s not a political office so to say, and there is not even any Norwegian article about it. Marius1603 (talk) 15:50, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 09:56, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:21, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Are there any reliable sources that indicate the actual position exists in an official capacity? Rather than just articles naming individual as a "Leader of the Opposition". Start from the premise of proving that a position exists rather than from potentially incorrect uses of the term applied to individuals who might be leaders of parties in opposition to the Government but not as an official "leader of the opposition". Macktheknifeau (talk) 17:28, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: How about having Opposition leaders in Norway instead? It seems that there are multiple leaders at any time. It would list the leaders of opposition political parties.Moondragon21 (talk) 19:40, 11 November 2021
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 11:05, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby Vaughn (designer)

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

Over a year ago I prodded this with "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant English-language coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar." PROD was removed by an IP editor without any edit summary, and the article is still a substub with no indication of why the subject might be notable. The image in the article seems to be a selfie by the subject, raising concerns about WP:Conflict of interest. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:41, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:20, 5 November 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. Acroterion (talk) 16:52, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sunder Singh Lyallpuri

[edit]
Sunder Singh Lyallpuri (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 person UserABCXYZ (talk) 11:32, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 11:16, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Inger!

[edit]
Inger! (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:NBOOK, unsourced and I can't find any significant coverage. The author has no Wikipedia entry. The article consists only of a few lines of plot summary. Lennart97 (talk) 09:15, 5 November 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 11:07, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sandra Overlack

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

Clearly fails WP:NPOL Heideneii (talk) 07:56, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for putting salt in the wound :D
As for the other article you mentioned, I disagree and look at TAZ, Le Figaro and Volkskrant in addition to various local articles, but I'm with you on this one, as even the local coverage is primarily about the party. --Heideneii (talk) 16:54, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. Sennecaster (Chat) 13:03, 29 October 2021 (UTC) Striking; I removed from the delsort due to not being conservatism. Sennecaster (Chat) 13:04, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 08:42, 5 November 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. clpo13(talk) 22:50, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sticker Mule

[edit]
Sticker Mule (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 does not appear to pass WP:NCORP (particularly WP:CORPDEPTH) based on the citations in the article or what I could find via internet search. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 07:47, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I did a WP:BEFORE check on this a day or two ago and didn't find anything except for some minor coverage involving a rec/training center, a donation and an overtime lawsuit, which curiously we have no coverage of. Does not appear to meet WP:GNG. ASUKITE 13:45, 5 November 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 11:17, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Krishna Prakash (IPS)

[edit]
Krishna Prakash (IPS) (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 subject who does not seem notable to me for any of his achievements, pretty much refbombed to a mix of genuine news about him, pr and passing mentions. Police commissioners will always get some media coverage but what I can see doesn’t suggest this individual is anything other than ROTM. Mccapra (talk) 07:37, 5 November 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 Tulu language#Writing system. Disregarding the SPAs, there is consensus not to have a separate article on this topic. Where to redirect to and whether to merge anything remain questions to be settled through the editorial process. Sandstein 11:16, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tulu script

[edit]
Tulu script (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 script, per the cited britannica source, appears to be a variety of Grantha script, rather than a separate script entirely. For this reason, I would propose that this page be redirected to the page of the Grantha script Tigalari script (updated at 07:40, 5 November 2021 (UTC)), where the topic can be adequately covered. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 07:30, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 07:30, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 07:30, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment We have one editor repeatedly pushing this without RSs. If there's a modern script it might be Tigalari script, which per our article is aka "Tulu script". Can't say much without RSs to refer to. — kwami (talk) 07:38, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Something that worries me about this article (but not directly important for deciding whether the article should exist) is the following sentence: "It is one of the oldest language born almost during the same time when Tamil & Prakrit were born.". That's the sort of thing you might read in a popular magazine article about Tulu, but experts in linguistics don't usually say things like that, as they generally reject the notion that languages have ages. It might be fair to say that Dutch is older than Afrikaans, because we know pretty well when Afrikaans came into existence, but that is the exception. Athel cb (talk) 10:10, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another comment. In the history of the article we can read the following, written by an editor who has made a major contribution to it: "Tulu, malayalam and tigalari are differnt script from the same source which is grantha. There are misconception that tulu and tigalari are same which is false. Even kannada and telugu script looks 90 percent similar that doesnt means they are similar. Same with tulu and tigalari". To say that two things that are 90% similar are not "similar" seems absurd, written by someone with a private definition of "similar". Athel cb (talk) 10:17, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I oppose the deletion of this page. I also oppose redirecting to some other page. Combining two Different script in one page will make it too controversial. In Wikipedia many newly created script have their own page. Where as this tulu script has a historical evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr anonymousMr (talk • contribs) 17:28, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I strongly oppose the deletion of this page, As a linguist and I have studied about Tulu script in the tulunad itself, it can be said that this article is telling the correct information about the script. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blensonc (talk • contribs) 18:03, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Tulu language#Writing system. This appears to be a content dispute (although there's also a deeper politics here as well, regarding official language recognition); if there's sufficient RS material shown to exist, a separate article can be created. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 20:28, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I strongly oppose the deletion of this page, As a linguist and I have studied about Tulu script in the tulunad itself, it can be said that this article is telling the correct information about the script.
In Wikipedia many newly created script have their own page. Where as this tulu script has a historical evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iampuneeth (talk • contribs) 23:38, 5 November 2021 (UTC) — Iampuneeth (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
The citation that's being used doesn't actually support keeping this article. The source, a letter, is written by a single instructor at the Karnataka Tulu Sahitya Academy (although we run into a sparsely sourced page for its Wikipedia entry...). And, that letter (which, granted, doesn't actually carry all that much weight being what appears to be an WP:SPS) doesn't actually object to considering Tulu and Tigalari as the same script; the quibble is with the name of the script. If that alone were a justified reason to split the pages, WP:POVFORK might as well be dead. Covering the two scripts together is more than reasonable. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:34, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The idea of unified script is not appropriate as it deviates from the idea of evolution of script. Several inscriptions diciphered in Tulu are in late 21st century and are still being discovered. Multiple researches done previously are inadequate or lack enough evidence to classify Tigalari and Tulu as same script. There is clear attempt to overshadow Tulu with Tigalari. The epigraphists and paleographic experts have found multiple stone inscriptions dated to 10th CE, If you look into few stone inscriptions it is found that Tulu script was used to write Tulu sentences, and Kannada script was used to write Kannada sentences in a single stone inscription. This is substantial proof that Tulu was used in administration along with Kannada and script itself was Tulu. I Request you to don't delete this article. I think the tigalari page needs a complete cleanup as it includes lot of wrong information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr anonymousMr (talk • contribs) 08:47, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.unicode.org/L2/L2021/21213-tulu-reply.pdf
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 11:18, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nanjundapuram flyover

[edit]
Nanjundapuram flyover (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 about what seems to me to be a run of the mill road flyover in Coimbatore. It gets a few mentions in the press but I don’t really see what makes it notable. We have a whole category for flyovers in Coimbatore, some tagged for notability, others not, but I’d like to know what the consensus is on this one in the first instance. Mccapra (talk) 07:11, 5 November 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 11:19, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

John W. Williams (Florida official)

[edit]
John W. Williams (Florida official) (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 see no indication that the subject even comes close to meeting our notability standards. 207.161.86.162 (talk) 04:28, 4 November 2021 (UTC) (procedural nomination as requested by an IP Elli (talk | contribs) 04:28, 5 November 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. clpo13(talk) 22:51, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dickshooter, Idaho

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

It's got quite the colorful name, but there doesn't seem to be anything here that meets WP:GEOLAND/WP:GNG. –dlthewave ☎ 04:12, 5 November 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 11:21, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ofra Cosmetics

[edit]
Ofra Cosmetics (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:NCORP, lacks WP:SIGCOV. Possible WP:COI/WP:UPE. Hence, calling for an AfD discussion. - Hatchens (talk) 03:37, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus with no prejudice against speedy renomination. clpo13(talk) 22:55, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Arindom Chatterjee

[edit]
Arindom Chatterjee (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 first tried to improve the page, but then realized it is just a promotional article about this composer without significant links to verify the information. I don't find him notable as per WP:MUSICIAN. Most links are not even reliable or don't open.

these links don't open http://enter10buzz.com/celebrity/arindom-chatterjee/ http://www.washingtonbanglaradio.com/content/124594612-bojhena-shey-bojhena-2012-bengali-movie-music-release http://www.gomolo.com/arindom-chatterjee-movies-list-popular/358132

these links are not reliable or show his notability https://web.archive.org/web/20151001035643/http://scoregoalsindia.com/isl-atletico-de-kolkata-theme-song-and-video-launch/ https://web.archive.org/web/20151003051659/http://www.gomolo.com/685328/photo-11279051

This link is of a music streaming platform which makes no sense as a reference https://www.jiosaavn.com/artist/arindom-chatterjee-songs/C-0SVyD2SU0_ Trolli Onida (talk) 15:35, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:57, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:57, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:49, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2015-10 ✗ deleted ← 2015-09 ✗ PROD ← 2015-09 ✗ PROD
--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 01:45, 5 November 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) LibStar (talk) 01:01, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Burkina Faso–Spain relations

[edit]
Burkina Faso–Spain relations (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. Relations are very little besides diplomatic recognition: no embassies, agreements, trade, state visits or migration. The article even states that Burkina Faso is not a priority for Spain "Burkina Faso has not traditionally been a country of cooperation for Spain, nor does it appear in the current Master Plan for Spanish Cooperation (2013–2016) as a country of association." LibStar (talk) 00:18, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Keep. While I understand (and share) the concern of the AfD creator about creating articles without third party sources, Spanish special forces are operating in Burkina Faso, with Guardia Civil agents training elite rural antiterrorist units in the mould of the GAR as part of the GAR-SI SAHEL initiative. There has been explanatory requests by the Spanish minister to their Burkinese counterpart concerning the assassination of Spanish journalists. All in all, we can have a micro-stub with this sort of content. The interaction/friction of the southwestern fringes of Eurasia with the Sahelian area is only expected to become more evident in the coming future, whether that involves embassy-level diplomatic representation or not. Another recent interaction examples[20]--Asqueladd (talk) 17:16, 8 November 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. clpo13(talk) 22:56, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Walla Walla Symphony

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

after a quick WP:Before, couldn't find any RS to see how this meets the relevant notability guidelines Lavalizard101 (talk) 20:47, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:04, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:04, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I found a few sources: see [21], [22], and various others in Newspapers.com and Proquest. Given the likelihood that additional offline sources exist for this century-old symphony, I have little trouble concluding that it's notable. The article needs a great deal of work (and I wouldn't object to stubifying it), but deletion of course is not cleanup. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:36, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:52, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- as per above.Best Regards.---✨LazyManiik✨ 02:30, 28 October 2021 (UTC) Sockpuppet of blocked user Lazy Maniik. ✗plicit 14:12, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to Walla Walla, Washington - some work would need to be done to fit it into the "Fine and performing arts" section. A lot of the information in the article is trivia and the sources don't look independent, but there is at least enough notability for a redirect and a paragraph on the town's article. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 00:02, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 00:06, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I found the same two substantial references as Extraordinary Writ and many others that tend to be about specific concerts or in local papers. There are two books I found specifically about the orchestra that do not look to be self published but without reading them I can't make my own assessment of editorial independence to see if they contribute to notability.[23][24] As it stands the article is substantial but needs referencing and it looks as if with references to reliable sources (and the books may well contribute here, if not for notability) a worthwhile revamped version could be produced. Thincat (talk) 11:19, 5 November 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.