Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 August 18

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< August 17	August 19 >

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. Geschichte (talk) 18:52, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ultra Products

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

Doesn't meet WP:CORP or WP:GNG. Not mentioned in Systemax article. Boleyn (talk) 21:26, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:48, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lacking notability. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 19:59, 17 August 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 23:55, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The notability of this topic appears to be not notable at all: a source is literally just a patent, one is a court document, and both the Engadget articles are short and mean very little. Also, attempting to loo for sources only turned up unrelated topics. — CVValue (talk) 15:06, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non notable. Nitesh003 (talk) 13:37, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability as per WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:28, 23 August 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:27, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Josie Canseco

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

I don't see anything in her resume (cause that's all this article is) that makes her notable (her modeling career doesn't), and I don't think that appearances in "Hollywood Exes" guarantee notability. BTW I think the mother, Jessica Canseco, isn't notable either, but one thing at a time. Drmies (talk) 20:54, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:27, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:27, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:27, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:27, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Be that as it may, I created it because being a Playboy Playmate is in fact notable for a model and walking in the Victoria's Secret Fashion Show, though it is now defunct, was very notable at the time for models (though it wouldn’t be if that’s the only job she did). Appearance on a tv show is only trivial to the fact that her mom was a main cast member, which for Canseco the Elder is notable whether we like it or not because that would be a significant role in a notable tv show. The way she was discovered was reported on by Fox News, Huffington Post, and InStyle. Being the daughter of a former Yankee, naturally people will automically throw his name in there no matter the story but as far as I’m concerned the notability is there for herself. Trillfendi (talk) 23:00, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't think a single reference in this article shows notabliity. As it stands, there are six references. The Sports Illustrated page is a casting call, of which they have done hundreds. I don't think someone's own instagram should be used as a reference. The Business Insider "article" is about 2 sentences, and it's just regurgitating a Buzzfeed article, a marginally reliable source anyway. New York Post is not a reliable source. I've never heard of Hola!, but it appears to be a tabloid website. Cosmopolitan is a marginally reliable source and there probably wouldn't be an article if she was dating someone less famous than herself, it's notable because of Logan Paul.I tried to do my own WP:BEFORE, but failed. --Darth Mike^(talk) 18:24, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:41, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: There are a ton of articles chronicling her life and exploits. Additionally based on Notability guidelines for entertainers, I believe that her being in Playboy , Victoria's Secret, and ELLE count. That being said, the coverage does tend to be more about who she is dating and what she is eating, but people obviously care. FiddleheadLady (talk) 17:32, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:54, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, including per WP:NOTGOSSIP/WP:NOTDIARY, which encourages us to exclude coverage of gossip and trivia, and per Darth Mike and my own research, leaves insufficient independent and reliable sources to support WP:BASIC or other criteria for an article at this time. Beccaynr (talk) 22:00, 24 August 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. RL0919 (talk) 23:36, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Take a Worm for a Walk Week

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

Do not appear to satisfy WP:NBAND. – DarkGlow • 23:33, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 23:33, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 23:33, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 23:33, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's one viable review of their album ([1]) at The Skinny and one slightly suspect review of their final show ([2]) on the same site. Other than that, I didn't find much. Not enough to pass WP:BAND, anyhow. — sparklism ^hey! 12:36, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Sparklism. Strange name for a band though. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 20:44, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I would concur with the view that the lack of available third party sources and coverage suggests that they are not notable enough to have an article. Dunarc (talk) 22:55, 21 August 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. RL0919 (talk) 23:31, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Superhero (band)

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

Do not satisfy WP:NBAND. – DarkGlow • 23:22, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 23:22, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 23:22, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 23:22, 18 August 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. RL0919 (talk) 23:32, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Red Silent Tides

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

Does not satisfy WP:NALBUM (not been covered by multiple reliable sources in depth, not charted, not certified, etc etc. Been in CAT:NN for almost 11 years. – DarkGlow • 23:21, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 23:21, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 23:21, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:11, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found a few reviews including AllMusic,[3] Metal.de,[4] and Hard Rock Haven.[5] There's also this article about the album's release date in Blabbermouth.net.[6] There's other reviews as well but they look like they're on more niche websites. BuySomeApples (talk) 07:16, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I added some sources to the page. BuySomeApples (talk) 07:30, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The sources indicated by BuySomeApples are reliable. I also found some more reliable sources which talk about the album: [7], [8] and [9]. That said, the article is good enough to pass WP:NALBUM. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 14:50, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY, but re: the above post, Metalreviews.com doesn't look reliable. Geschichte (talk) 18:45, 24 August 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. RL0919 (talk) 23:45, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Linnéa Ågren

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

Badly sourced BLP on a footballer that does not appear to meet WP:GNG. In Google searches and a Swedish source search, I found only a match report mention and two passing mentions in a Swedish football blog. I can't find any coverage that would pass any reasonable interpretation of 'significant coverage'. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:48, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:49, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:49, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:49, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:49, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:50, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 10:16, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 05:26, 22 August 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. RL0919 (talk) 23:34, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bybit Lydia Tsomondo

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

As a the mayor of a small town and a failed candidate for office, Tsomondo does not meet WP:NPOL. I was not able to locate any coverage of her that meets GNG - just trivial mentions in articles about other subjects. (And going by the username, if the account that created the article isn't a COI, I'll eat my hat). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:35, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:35, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:35, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:35, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Since ZANU-PF has been the ruling party in Zimbabwe since 1980, a member of the party's central committee is arguably something like a cabinet minister in other countries. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:42, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. According to this article, there are about 300 people on the Central Committee, which hardly seems equivalent to a cabinet, which is 10-20 people each selected to be in charge of a particular portfolio of duties. And anyway, Zimbabwe has a Parliamentary Cabinet, so they're clearly different things. (Tsomondo has never been part of the Cabinet as far as I can tell.) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:19, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Being a member of a central party committee when you have an actual cabinet and parliament is not a sign of notability, at least when that committee has 300 members. Being mayor of a suburb of an international important city is not a sign of notability either.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:36, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - but add her name to the infobox for Norton. Furius (talk) 21:03, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - mentioning her in Norton's article seems enough to me. She does not meet notability criteria for her own article (as mentioned WP:NPOL).--Melaleuca alternifolia | talk 06:03, 20 August 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 as a WP:DICDEF. RL0919 (talk) 21:11, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Overwriting (computer science)

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

Straightforward violation of Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The sole reference in the article is to a random online dictionary. This is already covered at wikt:overwrite. There is no encyclopedic topic to be had here or prospect for expansion; the actual encyclopedic topic is already covered at computer memory. I would also be okay with a redirect to computer memory (or, possibly, merged to a tiny stub at Glossary of computer software terms or the like, perhaps). Would have just boldly redirected & merged but there was opposition to a redirect as well on the talk page and a removed prod. While this term of course comes up in reliable sources, it's always as part of a larger topic; "overwrite" itself is just a normal English word. Note that Writing (computer science) isn't an article (nor should it be) of which this is just a special case of. SnowFire (talk) 20:59, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging talk page participants in the RM as well as objector who removed the prod: @Clovermoss, Zxcvbnm, and Djm-leighpark: . SnowFire (talk) 20:59, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:59, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to computer memory. Clovermoss (talk) 22:10, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: (as the dePRODer) To be clear the article is not fit for mainspace in is current state, its even more horrific Overwriting points to it. I dePRODed it because I see, on quick scan, a possibility of a useful WP:HEY. To quote the nominator on my talk page, albeit in a different context, "editors are not psychic nor expected to be", any possibly may not be able to envisage how someone else might HEY the article, so "no encyclopedic topic to be had here or prospect for expansion" might be a little bit of an assertion that could end up being disproved. I refute the topic is covered at computer memory; mainly because the article in its current state is somewhat confused whether its about "computer storage" or "computer memory", and I'd contend the topic can encompass both. I read the PROD as already being controversial in the talk, with someone at some point seeming to indicate preference for AfD; hence a confidence in dePROD. As the result of the dePROD I looked at the possibility of doing an AfD but as I felt it could be improved I couldn't pass a BEFORE myself (though no object and in fact expecting someone else to give to take to AfD. I search for a template such as "This is a basket case article at moment" wikipedia warning template but the best I could manage was a very poor cn before I gave up. To stress a point, I am strongly not in favor of it remaining in mainspace in its current state. I'll also be giving a strong oppose to computer memory as a target as it because can also refer and be relevant to computer storage (Per the categories). Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:37, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Would you find a redirect to one of the various glossary articles acceptable then? E.g. Glossary of computer software terms or Glossary of computer science? (I'd lightly prefer the first since the second seems to restrict itself to topics with articles only. SnowFire (talk) 18:43, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The short answer is no. I really don't like the name Overwriting (computer science) as it can refer to several different concepts/topics and either needs to be an encyclopedic article or point to or be a DAB (or Glossary) page; and it might end up disrupting that glossary if it went there. The first glossary suggested seems to be a basket case as is and shouldn't be entertained at present. Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:22, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Can I suggest someone with less fingers in the pie than me pragmatically closes the move discussion on the article page 1: As it can and should now be discussed in a single place here if necessary. 2: Because of recent changes to Overwrite and Overwriting. Overwriting was changed by elseone to a DAB and I've redirected previous redirects to Overwrite to here ... good luck if you've followed this but I'd suggest to simply look at the content of the current page in this discussion and not go off topic on Overwrite/Overwriting DABs/redirects. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 01:47, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I've decided not to try to develop this as a article. The current content seems, as I have indicated before, mostly gibberish. I think its a title which could refer to different things for different people and therefore best eliminated.. If their is an immense desire to retain the talk to assist in taking me to ANI then move article and talk to e.g. Overwriting (memory buffer) and point to Buffer overflow, optionally adding to the Overwrite/Overwriting DAB page. THankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:22, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, I have considered if there is scope to expand this, though I do take a point above that it is, in essence, a definition that is better suited in a dictionary and not as an article. I am not entirely convinced that is the only option and could be persuaded otherwise, however on balance is does seem more appropriate as a definition than an encyclopedia article. Even if merging or redirecting, there is more than one candidate and I could not identify one specifically. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:24, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; undersourced DICDEF. The existing DAB page (with links to Wiktionary) is sufficient. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 01:04, 25 August 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. For the avoidance of doubt this means that the articles should be kept and not truned into redirects, per WP:NOCON "lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit".

The majority of participants were against deletion, wanting to retain the titles in one form or another. Of the few who wanted outright deletion, most confused notability of lists with notability of items on the list and were thus not putting forward a rationale based in policy, a point made by several of the participants. It has be said that some of the keep participants made a similar mistake, arguing that since Playboy was notable, the models were notable and thus the list was notable. This is a failure of WP:NOTINHERITED of course.

Those wanting to redirect in some form were in a slight majority over those wanting to keep, but not so overwhelmingly as to stop this being no consensus. Of the redirect group, there was no consensus over where the articles should be redirected to. They were split roughly evenly between redirecting to List of Playboy Playmates of the Month and merging into the decades list. SpinningSpark 19:07, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of Playboy Playmates of 1958

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

Articles included in nomination

Currently redirects unless otherwise noted.

This is a discussion for every page between List of Playboy Playmates of 1954 and List of Playboy Playmates of 2018. I recently redirected them all to the more relevant decade list, such as List of people in Playboy 1970–1979. This follows on the heels of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Playboy_Playmates_of_2019, which closed as delete but had a majority of votes for "delete all". I felt that redirecting the rest would not be controversial and would save bureaucratic time, but apparently not.

As I reasoned at the AfD for the 2019 one: Fails WP:NLIST, which states a list must have been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources. Note the sources plural. The only organization discussing these as a group is in fact Playboy itself. We are not a directory of Playboy models. All it seems to be doing is listing a bunch of non-notable women, which opens up the doors to all sorts of BLP issues, and then just lists their body measurements, an obviously sexual detail. I fail to see how it is in any way encyclopedic. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:22, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging the participants of the last discussion: Wizzito Pburka Zaathras K.e.coffman Genericusername57 力 Johnpacklambert Filmomusico CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:28, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Wanted to park some past AFDs here as I consider the issue more fully: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Playboy Playmates of 1961 (Keep, May 2011); Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Playboy Playmates of 2014 (Keep, July 2014); Talk:List of Playboy Playmates of 2015 (Speedy deletion rejected, May 2015) ("this list should remain until such time as the nominator gets together some consensus to delete all the lists."); Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Playboy Playmates of 1995 (Keep, Feb 2017) -- these appear to be the main past AFDs and that one speedy deletion that I found. It appears the consensus for the last 10+ years has been to keep the lists; that doesn't foreclose a change, of course.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 19:35, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Totally agree. I don't mind red links and creating articles on deceased models, since for them, post mortem periodicals are more abundant then for the living. However, creating articles on the living requires wit and knowledge. I understand that most creators assume that if a model is in a Playboy magazine, that makes her automatically notable, because Playboy magazine is famous, but it's not always the case.--Filmomusico (talk) 19:40, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That was for the individual models. Now for the list: I don't see how a list can be encyclopedic, especially when it comes to call girls. Like, I understand that there is probably a field for those type of people that like such directories, but I can find similar if not better directories on any other porn site. That said, we need to remember that Wikipedia is first and foremost - an encyclopedia. Creating lists that list every model and her breast size is a bit strange. Why not list eye and hair color too?--Filmomusico (talk) 19:51, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I feel there is no need for separate annual pages, the decade pages can be expanded, if necessary. In fact, I think folks looking for information on these models are better served keeping the information together, less jumping around.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:17, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
True, but the thing is, is that even decade pages are unnecessary. At least, that's the notion that I am getting from @CaptainEek:, and I agree with that statement.--Filmomusico (talk) 20:34, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no reason to treat notice in this one magazine as something so special we need such comprehensive lists for it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:39, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with @Johnpacklambert:.--Filmomusico (talk) 20:50, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There may be legitimate reasons to merge or delete these lists, but the rationale that the topic hasn't been discussed as a group by reliable sources doesn't hold water. Here are some of the sources I presented in the last AfD, and there are plenty more available: "Seven Tenths Incorrect: Heterogeneity and Change in the Waist-to-Hip Ratios of Playboy Centerfold Models and Miss America Pageant Winners" in The Journal of Sex Research, Harding, Les, A Biographical Dictionary of Playboy Magazine's Playmates of the Month, 1953-1979 (McFarland 2019) and Edgren, Gretchen. The Playmate Book: Six Decades of Centerfolds (Taschen 2005). There's an independent biographical dictionary covering a quarter-century of Playmate models; if that's not evidence of notability then I don't know what would be. pburka (talk) 21:04, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you sure this dictionary is actually indepedent. Wikipedia should not and cannot cover everything that ever gets published. Also the fact the source stops in 1979 means it in no way supports having lists any more recent than that year.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:18, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm quite sure it's independent: it's written by a former librarian who lives in Newfoundland and published by a respected academic publisher. The volume is presented to demonstrate that the set of Playboy Playmates have been discussed as a group, and the other sources cover more recent members of the group. pburka (talk) 22:33, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - The fact that "it's written by a former librarian" doesn't sell on Wikipedia. I do agree with the fact that "[it's] published by a respected academic publisher".--Filmomusico (talk) 01:43, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - Did a librarian take your lunch money? I imagine university librarians from Newfoundland are independent from Playboy Magazine. If you have evidence to the contrary please present it. pburka (talk) 13:39, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I do not have many edits, because I don't edit the main wiki much but I feel this is important enough to voice I think that the pages should be kept. Why? Because the wiki is supposed to be a source of information and the idea, that someone would say, "All it seems to be doing is listing a bunch of non-notable women, which opens up the doors to all sorts of BLP issues, and then just lists their body measurements, an obviously sexual detail. I fail to see how it is in any way encyclopedic," is problematic in my opinion. CaptainEek said that they were non-notable but the wiki has articles on pornstars, and they are notable in the fact they were in playboy. Because the number of people who have been in playboy is relatively small. Their body measurements are part of it, it is like listing reviews regarding movies or car details. It is encyclopedic because again the wiki is supposed to be a source for information.

Johnpacklambert said Wikipedia should not and cannot cover everything that ever gets published. At one time I would agree with you but not now, it is online and it should cover as much as humanly possible. Again a source of information. We want as much information as possible. Including for the playboy mates, one for them who I remember reading killed herself, which I did not know before reading the list of playmates for her year. That is why the articles should be restored Thank you. Allenknott3 (talk) 22:45, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Allenknott3: Then maybe we should list their race, hair and eye color too? What will your opinion be on this one? Why we should list only their breast measurements, why are they special?--Filmomusico (talk) 01:37, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You already called them "call girls" above, so your bias is pretty evident.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 15:16, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It may be helpful to list all relevant past discussions and current articles. For example, we have the article List of Playboy Playmates of the Month. --Hipal (talk) 00:21, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As a side note, we don't have lists for Maxim models, so what should be special about these lists?--Filmomusico (talk) 01:40, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment@Filmomusico: If you want to list all of that, alright, but I do not think/remember the articles listing that information. For the most part, the playboy articles listed only the girl's measurements and sometimes backstory, if I remember correctly. As for the races they are overwhelmingly white women. You may disagree with that but someone likely or dislikes that is not the issue. You are right, the wiki does not have lists for Maxim or other models but first, maybe it should, and second, there is an article for FHM's 100 Sexiest Women should that also be deleted? Third, I would argue that Playboy's impact on society and culture is far great than Maxim or any online site, hint it deserves its own list. Fourth, the pages already exist why even delete them? Fifth, the article you links to share no details on the women, they are literally just names on a page. If they do not have their own wiki article it just links back to the same page. I am not seeing much in the way of counterargument but what it seems to be to me is that some individuals do not like the list because it is Playboys. That is alright, I do not like Playboys, never picked up one, never read one, but what I opposed is the deletion of the pages because some find the women to note, "non-notable women," and that the information should not be here on a wiki despite the wiki being but a source of information. If you do not want to create new pages that fine, because honestly there is no need to after 2020 but for over sixty years Playboys posted playmates and that is noteworthy. Allenknott3 (talk) 02:21, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Allenknott3:I don't care if it's Playboys or not. Having a list of 100 Sexiest Women it's fine, even Forbes and Time lists their 100 Something every year. No problem here. The problem is the creation of lists which contain over a 100 of women, half of which don't even have their own article. That raises a question: What is the point? As for the listing of eyes and hair, it was just a suggestion, so that people here would not accuse Wikipedia of sexual discrimination. Of course, there was never a list that would list all that on Wikipedia.--Filmomusico (talk) 02:48, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment P.S. My vote is to (KeepAugust 2021)them. Allenknott3 (talk) 02:23, 5 August 2021 (UTC)Allen[reply]
These pages all need an AFD tag, right? Want me to tag them in AWB? –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:20, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Novem Linguae: That'd be awesome! I knew there had to be a faster way than by hand...which I admittedly did not want to do and thus did not. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 06:23, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Do we need to notify page creators too? I count at least 7. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:01, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Novem Linguae, brilliant. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:38, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into the decade lists / a single list, with less detailed information. Wiki doesn't need to be giving these people's measurements etc, but I think it is appropriate for them to be listed somewhere. Furius (talk) 11:02, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Does List of Playboy Playmates of the Month suffice for the single list you propose? --Hipal (talk) 15:34, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:05, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all - I think enough comments have been made. As per my reasoning in my comment above, redirect is the most expedient resolution. Any information which interested users wish to merge from these pages can be merged, but that should not be the requirement of the result of this discussion. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:41, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. For those proposing merging/redirecting into the per-decade lists, those lists also include cover models, interview subjects and pictorials. We've seen that Playmates (aka centerfold models) as a group are notable, since reliable sources treat them as a group. Are these other lists of Playboy people also notable? I'm leaning towards the position that only Playmates have demonstrable notability as a group and it's the per-decade lists that are non-notable. pburka (talk) 15:20, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Pburka: Not only. We have a List of Miss Universe titleholders, List of Miss America titleholders and, low and behold: List of Victoria's Secret models. Those are also models and are also notable.--Filmomusico (talk) 15:57, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- How are those lists relevant to the current discussion? pburka (talk) 16:00, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Pburka: I was responding to your suggestion of creating Maxim model lists.--Filmomusico (talk) 17:30, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't know what you're talking about. pburka (talk) 17:40, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - @Pburka: Sorry, I was replying to @Allenknott3: and accidentally pinged you instead.--Filmomusico (talk) 18:33, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per my last vote. Having per-year articles is a combination of a CFORK of the content on per-decade articles, and a COATRACK to have biographies of non-notable people. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 17:48, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all per power-enwiki. Reywas92^Talk 20:48, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment@Filmomusico: the point is to list the women with whatever information exists. It is not sexual discrimination. Are you kidding? Playboy historically features women posing nude. Their measurements are just like a football player's stats, height, weight, 40 yards time, etc. Why are some lists are acceptable others are not? I think the pages that list them should be left alone. Allenknott3 (talk) 00:36, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your explanation. Yes, I am aware that Playboy features nude women, but I never thought of it as player's stats.

--Filmomusico (talk) 00:45, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As for "why some lists are acceptable and others are not", please refer to here or better yet, here.--Filmomusico (talk) 00:45, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

the point is to list the women with whatever information exists Yes, that's been the point all along: To ignore and work around policies against that (NOT, BLP, POV, POVFORK, COAT). --Hipal (talk) 15:43, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Was a final decision made? Because honestly, I feel like those of us who are arguing to keep the pages are just wasting their time and breathe. Nothing I said is going to convince the other side and I had just given up. However, I had all of the pages saved. @Filmomusico: that is exactly what they are. Just like male pornstars had their measurements lists too. Allenknott3 (talk) 23:53, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Guess I never seen a male pornstar measurements.--Filmomusico (talk) 23:55, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I am not seeing any arguments here that persuade me the outcomes in the discussions which occurred in 2011-17 and ended in Keep, which I cited near the top, are wrong. This debate is really not about whether playmates are notable, it is just about how we are going to categorize that information and how much of it will be included in our coverage. Sitting here in 2021, I can already tell that editors are losing touch with the extent of U.S. coverage that playmates received in the 60s-90s. So it goes; no one who doesn't study 19th century pop culture U.S. history will know how much horse racing and boxing were dominant cultural pastimes then. There is not a question that Wikipedia readership reads these articles. In July 2021, the 1982 article got 3,352 page views [10] 1976 got 3,486 [11]. 1960 got 1,909 [12] 2014 got 2,912 [13]. If folks aren't aware, these are relatively popular view counts. Look at your own article creations, e.g., Bouteloua chondrosioides is a fine scientific article by nominator CaptainEek. It got 14 views in July 2021. [14]. And my creation Nick of the Woods, on a legit 1837 bestselling book, only got 111 views in July 2021.[15]. People read these articles because they are notable, not vice versa. When it comes to humans and sexuality, rationality can be harder to achieve, its the way we are built. I know we go by policy and consensus, and I agree with those rules, so this will be my last comment here. I am glad we had a debate instead of just redirecting them all without an AFD on the group. I see that Allenknott3 has saved all the pages, and a redirect outcome (if that's the outcome) is still going to preserve page history if future consensus alters. So Allen or someone else will make a fan wiki with all this information, and probably not police it as well as we will. Cheers.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:12, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Milowent: I don't think the articles are viewed by notability criteria. Notability criteria is for us - for a reader it's baseless. The reader clicks on whatever we put out for a reader to see, if you get what I am saying.--Filmomusico (talk) 16:21, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Filmomusico: Most articles get very little traffic; if something is popular, it is often notable, this is my area of academic interest.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 19:36, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Milowent: Yes, but not everything that is being clicked on, means that someone is reading something of interest. I for one, can click on an article, go to sleep, come back, click on something else (assuming that I am not an editor). And lists especially. Who reads them? The Playmates that have nothing else to do in their spare time?

--Filmomusico (talk) 19:43, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Like, no disrespect to the Babes Next Door, but there is a difference between listing notable models and listing non notable ones. For example, I am in support of keeping a list of films by a famous actor or director (as well as lists of films by year in general), because we sometimes can't fit over a dozen films on their bio page (and, there are more films coming out every year then there are Playmates).

Same is with music. However, we don't need to create lists for models, and especially creating them by the decade and then by year.--Filmomusico (talk) 20:06, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's clear to me that lists of Playmates are notable, as reliable sources treat them as a group. It's not clear that the lists of other people in each Playboy issue are notable, so I'm dubious of a merge to the broader per-decade lists. The precise granularity of aggregation and the level of detail to include in each entry are content decisions. pburka (talk) 14:49, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into List of Playboy Playmates of the Month would be acceptable. pburka (talk) 23:56, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In looking at the guidelines, I’m not seeing how being on a list makes one notable, being in one magazine or one centerfold for that matter meets any of the notability criteria?? There are some truly notable playmates, but one is not notable purely by association, and an association with playboy (as a playmate) does not make said playmate notable. Lacking significant coverage and general notability.HedgeFundReporter (talk) 16:26, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per HedgeFundReporter (talk · contribs). I can't agree more. Not every playmate is considered notable simply because she is a playmate. I will bring an example here: Anna Nicole Smith wasn't considered notable until played in a dozen of films and later died of drug overdose and CNN and other big news outlets including BBC and The Guardian chimed in. Meanwhile, some kind of Playboy Playmate named Amy Miller (real name, possibly), is only featured there and a whole bunch of other pornsites. And now, I am not talking about this Amy Miller (in case if somebody will want to accuse a notable writer to be a pornstar). This Amy Miller. --Filmomusico (talk) 16:45, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: This AFD looks like it never appeared in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 August 4 or any other daily list page (at least none link to this discussion right now). So it was not readily available to editors who weren't otherwise aware of it. We probably need to relist and ensure it shows up on daily list.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 16:30, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I do not want any of the Playboy articles or information about Playboy playmate, or magazines deleted

        Ciro-flex — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ciro-flex (talk • contribs) 14:22, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@CaptainEek: This nomination was started two weeks ago but is still incomplete. Have you abandoned it? If so, please formally withdraw the nomination. pburka (talk) 20:43, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Pburka: Since there are outstanding delete !votes, it is for an admin to determine whether a consensus exists of can exist, not for the nominator to maintain the debate. This AfD started out malformed, and it still may not be complete in a few places. • Gene93k (talk) 20:59, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Gene93k: Thank you for listing the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, and thus completing the nomination steps. pburka (talk) 21:13, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, • Gene93k (talk) 20:52, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On balance, Keep. I am not an expert in this area, but (to deal with one comment made by some others) even I recognise the significant cultural impact of Playboy Magazine. I've reviewed the various ways of presenting the information, and I do like the decade by decade format for overall monthly content of each issue of Playboy. But I also really liked the separate pages for each year, giving more information on each month's "Playmate": it made it easy to identify similarities and differences, and helped me to understand how tastes could evolve over time. RomanSpa (talk) 21:29, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Just to be clear, I specifically oppose CaptainEek's wholesale redirections. I would also support a re-creation of the recently-deleted List_of_Playboy_Playmates_of_2019 for consistency. I regret missing that debate! RomanSpa (talk) 21:39, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect the lot per the salient arguments above - that these individual lists act as partial content forks and fail various aspects of our list guidelines (e.g. that Wikipedia isn't a repository for indiscriminate collections of information). firefly ( t · c ) 10:40, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think we're confusing WP:NOTABLE with WP:NOTEWORTHY. Quoting the latter:
The criteria applied to the creation or retention of an article are not the same as those applied to the content inside it. The notability guidelines do not apply to contents of articles or lists (with the exception of lists that restrict inclusion to notable items or people). Content coverage within a given article or list (i.e. whether something is noteworthy enough to be mentioned within the article or list) is governed by the principle of due weight and other content policies.

I've recently been fixing the dead links in the citations of these articles. Many of them are from newspaper sources rather than Playboy. To my mind the problem is that there's an attempt to give each Playmate an equal-sized lede-like paragraph, and not all Playmates have the sources to warrant that. It would make more sense to remove the unsourced content from the articles, leaving only the Playmates' names if necessary, rather than to delete all the articles and lose all the sourced content. - Polly Tunnel (talk) 17:41, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

These bulk nominations are an utter pain and Over the years we have had a mixed bag when it comes to successfully handling them. In the past being a playmate of the month was a big deal but I don’t think it is anymore and there is a question over where is the point that this become irrelevant and a magnet for content we no longer need. In my opinion we need to let this run its course and relist liberally until we are clear that we have a settled consensus. probably also worth listing somewhere prominent to draw in wider comment. As for the content, I don’t have a strong opinion but could live with a redirect and expanding decade articles with truly notable content Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:46, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all to List of Playboy Playmates of the Month. One is enough. One List to rule them all, One List to find them. One List to bring them all, and in Wikipedia bind them. In the Land of Hefner, where the porn lies. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:27, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all to List of Playboy Playmates of the Month. Having them listed there seems sufficient. Otherwise its like a porn catalog, showing their image, their breasts size, and other measurements. Dream Focus 21:53, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As per above, I agree with redirect option for all of the listed articles.--Melaleuca alternifolia | talk 21:07, 27 August 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:42, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Iran Metropolises News Agency

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

I have nominated this page for speedy deletion which was reverted by some who is not familiar with subject but this belongs to a very known and small, there is no coverage about them, they just belong to the Municipality of Isfahan which by it self means nothing, there are 3 sources on the article all from non-notable websites, first is from their own website, second source says also just say they have been active for past 12 years and third belongs to municipality itself. Mardetanha (talk) 20:35, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:01, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:01, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:01, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I am not sure about this one, but I added some references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:12, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help but it doesn't add anything to the article, I did my homework before this nomination Mardetanha (talk) 18:26, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

thank the lord you dont have admin access in engwiki.Exempt Farsi articles from law of Reliable Sources, Iran is worse than China. you shouldn't have fast deleted it in Farsi Wikipedia neither because of notability . this news site is top 100 Amazon Alexa worldwide bi (talk) 01:46, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. None of the sources provided contributes to notability, though I should mention that the language barrier has prevented a proper search for other sources. I would also mention that while I do not have access to the full Amazon Alexa list, I suspect the above poster is mistaken, as the site is not even in the top 50 in Iran. BilledMammal (talk) 22:09, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of independent notability (in the article or google search). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 07:34, 24 August 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. Bbb23 (talk) 13:38, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bhai Fateh Singh Ji

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

No reliable source covers the subject in detail and factual accuracy seems to be disputed. Redirect to Wazir Khan (Sirhind). TrangaBellam (talk) 20:02, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:02, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:02, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:02, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Later Mughals by William Irvine (historian) (reviewed here, cited as a reference in this article at the time it was nominated, appears to be a reliable source. From his article: "William Irvine (4 July 1840 – 3 November 1911) was an administrator of the Indian Civil Service and historian, known for works on the Moghul Empire. He was in British India from 1863 to 1889." Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:23, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Raj-era sources are disallowed in these areas. Thanks. TrangaBellam (talk) 04:13, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to recall that Raj-era sources are disfavoured with respect to some topics, such as castes, but I am unable to find where this is set forth in writing. I've tried looking at WP:DEPRECATED and the relevant wikiprojects but I would greatly appreciate a pointer. 68.189.242.116 (talk) 17:30, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- As far as I know, it is a longstanding practice but I am not really sure about the specifics of its evolution. If you need critiques of Irvine's historiography in contemporary scholarship, I can provide them. WP:HISTRS might be relevant. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:15, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

After some more digging, the closest on point discussion I could find is Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_172#Are_British_Raj_ethnographers_unreliable.3F which raises some good points. It would be helpful if these practices were recorded somewhere more easily found. In this specific case, the argument is likely moot as it appears the article in question was created by a previously blocked sockpuppet (User:Grayson Indica) and should probably be speedily deleted WP:G5 unless other editors contributions are deemed substantial. 68.189.242.116 (talk) 19:12, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sikhism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:59, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as I'm inclined to agree with the fact there's still actual historic significance and substance therefore enough for an article showing this. VocalIndia (talk) 14:59, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sources matter. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:05, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There appear to be post-Raj references cited, and more can be added. RomanSpa (talk) 23:00, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Like? TrangaBellam (talk) 15:05, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- I see no reason why history written during the British Raj should be any less reliable than any other history written in the same period. Post-raj historians may well be pushing one POV and those of the Raj period another. I am often wary of older British historians in dealing with some subjects, because we now know much more, but a historian dealing with something very specific will normally have had a source, even if he does not cite it. This article is about quite specific events. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:31, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That says you don't know much about S. Asian historiography or WP:HISTRS. There are atleast four other reliable sources who mention that the victim was assassinated by someone else. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:05, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Fateh Singh (Sikhism). Bhai and Ji are terms of endearment. Thus, Bhai Fateh Singh Ji and Fateh Singh are the same person (the beheading is mentioned on Fateh Singh's page. Heartmusic678 (talk) 15:18, 26 August 2021 (UTC) Redirect per nom and 68.189.242.116's comment. Fails WP:G5 because the blocked user was not in violation. The user was not blocked until 3 minutes after making another substantial edit on August 19. Heartmusic678 (talk) 16:28, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I had considered this possibility, too, but this article purports to be about an adult commander who beheaded Wazir Khan (Sirhind) and died in 1716, who bore the same name as the child Fateh Singh (Sikhism) who was killed by Wazir Khan in 1705. 68.189.242.116 (talk) 19:22, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On WP:G5, while the sockpuppet account (User:Grayson Indica) was blocked after having created this article, the sockmaster acccount (User:Punjabier) was blocked in 2019 and banned in 2020, making any subsequent creations by this editor subject to deletion via G5. 68.189.242.116 (talk) 17:28, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if G5 does not apply - subject has sufficient coverage in sources to meet WP:NBIO. However, based on the sockmaster being blocked in 2019, G5 might apply instead. MrsSnoozyTurtle 10:52, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:56, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Asher Quinn

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

Appears to be non-notable; subject has edited the article adding massive amounts of uncited detail; I searched for sources and found only one review. Skyerise (talk) 19:11, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:23, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:23, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Available sourcing (both in the article and on my searches) does not provide significant coverage in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject and therefore the article fails to meet the general notability guideline. Even if such coverage were to exist, the article is entirely and blatantly promotional, and would need to be redone from scratch to have any hope of being encyclopaedic. Jack Frost (talk) 09:53, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet WP:SINGER. A WP:BEFORE reveals no RS giving the artist coverage. I concur with Jack Frost that the article seems promotional. The usernames of some of the editors of the article also give me a concern for WP:COI. These are the only sources I can find discussing him and none of them appear to be reliable: [16], [17], [18],[19] Vladimir.copic (talk) 07:42, 24 August 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 Ronald McDonald. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:56, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

George Voorhis

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

The one source is not clealry relaible, but even if it was one source is not enough to show notability. It also is much more about others than Voorhis. Voorhis was a clown involved in the activities of a fast food company in part of the US, it seems there were other clowns working with the same fast food company in other parts of the US at the time. Considering the size and cultural impact of the company in question, if Voorhis was really a defining force behind their top recognized clown and his rise to fame and cultural impact, we should be able to find more sources on him. However, I looked though all the links to sources on the article {news, newspapers, scholar etc] and it turned up several mentions of other George Voorhis in totally different times and contexts, but not one additional source that actually discusses this George Voorhis. John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:03, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:20, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:20, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:21, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ronald McDonald. I agree that (somewhat surprisingly) there's no significant coverage of Voorhis: I found a few mentions, but it's all too trivial to contribute to notability. Redirecting seems a reasonable alternative to deletion since he's mentioned in the target article and redirects are cheap. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:21, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - in only reference Voorhis is just mentioned. Searching for other references did not give much results that would satisfy notability criteria. Seeing Voorhis listed in Ronald McDonals seems enough to me.--Melaleuca alternifolia | talk 06:11, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ronald McDonald. His principal claim to fame is his portrayal of Ronald McDonald. He claims to have created the character, but sourcing on that is hard to come by. He is discussed in the main article on Ronald McDonald, and a redirect seems to be the best solution. Cbl62 (talk) 14:52, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ronald McDonald Nitesh003 (talk) 03:44, 22 August 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. RL0919 (talk) 23:48, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ford V platform

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

So, where's the proof of this platform? This article is a bunch of misleading and manufactured information which doesn't even exist! Why is this allowed on Wikipedia, when many of us are required to abide by strict standards regarding verifiability? These articles created by User: Sfoskett all have the same pattern. Carmaker1 (talk) 18:51, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:57, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

François Coyle de Barneval

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

I can't find anything beyond a few trivial mentions that only say that he was a merchant who married Jeanne Dupleix's daughter. That's not significant coverage, and he can't inherit notability from his mother-in-law. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:32, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:32, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:32, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:32, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable biography. Only passing mentions in regards to his relations in sources. Cannot find anything more in-depth. Vladimir.copic (talk) 19:55, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/merge There's more information to be found in works such as The Church in Madras and Fort St. George, Madras: A Short History. Policy WP:ATD applies, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." Andrew🐉(talk) 21:01, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unless I’m mistaken, these two sources (by the same author) would not give WP:BASIC. The Church in Madras very briefly talks about a ‘Frances Barneval’ which would be hard to draw much information from. Fort St. George, Madras: A Short History Of Our First Possession In India does not mention Francois at all but lists his father Anthony Coyle de Barneval. Happy to be corrected if I’ve missed something. Also - what do you propose to merge this article with? Vladimir.copic (talk) 22:00, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There are a number (like a large number) of sources that mention Barneval; however, they are all one sentence snippets that say that he was married to the daughter of the Dupleixes and was a merchant employed by the EIC, apparently as a recordkeeper. However, nothing provides WP:SIGCOV, and he's not enough of a historic figure that we can tolerate lacking sources. Curbon7 (talk) 23:17, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Passing mentions are not significant coverage. Please do not misrepresent these as establishing notability. Reywas92^Talk 14:07, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly NN. We have noting about him except some genealogy. I note there was an Irish gentry family Barneval of whom he might have been a scion. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:17, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:57, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of politicians and public figures infected with COVID-19

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

Wikipedia is not a catalog of arbitrary information Lembit Staan (talk) 18:06, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete Poorly sourced, indiscriminate list with rampant BLP issues. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 19:39, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - too indiscriminate of a list, and also per reasons similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Critics of COVID-19 safety measures that have died from COVID-19, as this could be used as a POV fork. --MuZemike 21:46, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- What a weird article it was. Lembit Staan (talk) 22:46, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article was poorly sourced, contained little text, and made zero sense.TH1980 (talk) 01:04, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. Nitesh003 (talk) 03:47, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:DELREASON#14: Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia, specifically because Wikipedia is not a place for non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations. At time of writing, the cumulative number of COVID-19 cases is in the hundreds of millions, representing a few percent of the global population. That a significant number of "politicians and public figures" would be included is not exactly astonishing, and trying to list them all is WP:INDISCRIMINATE. I am at a loss as to what the WP:LISTPURPOSE is supposed to be here. TompaDompa (talk) 11:53, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As noted, hundreds of millions of people around the world have contracted and dealt with COVID-19, and there will likely be several million more to come before we're actually out of this mess — so the fact that some of those people were politicians is simply to be expected, and not in and of itself a topic of sufficient importance to justify maintaining a comprehensive and indiscriminate list of every politician who ever contracted a communicable disease. Bearcat (talk) 14:14, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:58, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here Comes Peter Cottontail: The Movie

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

Zero significant coverage. Fails WP:NFILM. IMDb is unreliable as a source per this discussion. Jalen Folf (talk) 17:29, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Jalen Folf (talk) 17:29, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:38, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment I wouldn't say "zero significant coverage'. There are 2 reviews at DVDTalk (which is a WP:RS) by different editors at [20] & [21]. Probably not enough on their own, but a start. DonaldD23 talk to me 17:41, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Those reviews are actually for the wrong movie. They're both for the 1971 TV special,Here Comes Peter Cottontail, which the subject of this article is purporting to be the sequel to. In fact, both of those reviews were written well before this film's release date is stated to be. Rorshacma (talk) 19:18, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. Meets neither WP:GNG or WP:NFILM. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:44, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I found a single article from Variety, but nothing else beyond that to establish NFILM has been met. At most this could be mentioned in the main article for the first film, but then we'd need to confirm that this is a sequel. The Variety source says that it was "inspired by" the original, FWIW. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:09, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It does not meet already mentioned criteria (especially WP:NF). Listed references are also not very significant (just IMDB notice and short article about cast of a future animated movie).--Melaleuca alternifolia | talk 06:16, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:32, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

StressCheck

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

This is a poorly sourced advertising brochure for a non-notable software product. My searches have shown nothing beyond the product's own web pages, which do not confer notability, and spurious hits for other things that have the same name. Reyk _YO! 16:04, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:22, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 16:49, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coolperson177 (talk) 16:36, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

del - no independent coverage of the product, no evidence of notability. Lembit Staan (talk) 18:09, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not satisfy notability criteria with sufficient notable references coverage. It also reads much like an adversitment.--Melaleuca alternifolia | talk 06:19, 20 August 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 Local planning authority#India. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:50, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Madurai Local Planning Authority

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

Local planning authority. Gets the types of mentions you might expect of an organization like this, but not enough in-depth coverage from independent sources to meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:22, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:37, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:37, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Local planning authority#India. Insufficient independent sourcing to demonstrate notability for a standalone article. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:14, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per Timtempleton. Mccapra (talk) 06:19, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge; per above. The Tamil Nadu state in India has alone more than 10 cities and each cities have numerous directorates. The Directorate of Town and Country Planning for Tamil Nadu might be notable but their branches for each cities are clearly not notable and at the most they belong as a subheading.SUN EYE 1 06:51, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't delete this article and not merge in Local planning authority#India per Timtempleton. Because the particular article about local planning authorities in UK, if want redirect, please give me a chance to create Article Directorate of Town and Country Planning as per User:Suneye1. Thank you! Dhaneesh 💙 Ram 16:07, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ram Dhaneesh, you can create it and redirect this name to it later.- SUN EYE 1 07:27, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

REDIRECTED. Madurai Local Planning Authority is redirected to Directorate of Town and Country Planning#Madurai LPA, Thank you Dhaneesh 💙 Ram 08:37, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Admin note: I have reverted the redirect. Please do not preemptively redirect articles that are under discussion at AfD. --RL0919 (talk) 21:30, 25 August 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 Greg Lindberg. Sandstein 07:52, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Global Growth

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

This article is about a billionaire's private equity firm with a somewhat uncertain future. It's owner, Greg Lindberg was the subject of a North Carolina political scandal in 2019/2020 after he attempted to bribe regulators to protect some of the subsidiaries of this firm, and he is now in prison. This article has been COI edited over the years, and almost all news coverage about Global Growth is tied to Greg Lindberg and the political scandal, which is already covered on the Lindberg article. I do not think that this topic is independently notable of Lindberg and thus should be deleted. -Indy beetle (talk) 15:22, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:58, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:58, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to Greg Lindberg, where is is covered. Lembit Staan (talk) 18:13, 18 August 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. Could be created as a redirect if a knowledgeable editor thinks it is a likely search term. RL0919 (talk) 16:07, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Post-modern constructivism

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

This stub serves no purpose. It's basically a micro-version of Constructivism (international relations). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:25, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:32, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Delete. Athel cb (talk) 16:29, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep', Constructivism as a whole can't be perceived as powerful enough to be able to subsume all the categories of constructivism. For example social constructionism. There are more categories which demand for inclusion as standalone pages like the topic realist constructivism. From notability perspective, it has been widely discussed and the article should be enlengthen to do a justice to the topic. Chirota (talk) 19:59, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Chiro725, this is not an offshoot of constructivism (broadly speaking). It's an offshoot of constructivism (international relations) which is already an offshoot of the broad constructivism category. Why can this one sentence not just be included in Constructivism (international relations) (where "post-modern constructivism" is already covered at greater length and depth than this stub)? The presence of these kinds of stubs make attempts to edit content incredibly hard, because the effort has to be duplicated across all the stubs, as well as the big main article. The impact that these stubs have is that the stubs remain unreadable (this one has barely been edited in 10 years) and the big main article remains poorly edited because readers and editors can't make sense of all the offshoots and duplicate versions that are out there. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:08, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom or possibly redirect if this is a plausible search term. Mccapra (talk) 07:37, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:59, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, or redirect to constructivism disambiguation page. Neutrality^talk 17:27, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect per above explanations. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 01:08, 19 August 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 13:02, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Amirmahdi Farzin

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

Article about an Iranian Sports writer that doesn't exactly meet WP:GNG and WP:SPORTBASIC. The sources provided are not WP:RS. A search on GNEWS both English and Persian turns up fewer than 3 passing mentions which do not qualify a page. Riteboke (talk) 12:33, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Riteboke (talk) 12:33, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Riteboke (talk) 12:33, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Riteboke (talk) 12:33, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Riteboke (talk) 12:33, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Certainly meets WP:GNG because there are lots of Reliable sources in Persian (Farsi) referred to the article. A search must be in the subject's nickname wich is Iman Farzin (ایمان فرزین).--Po Dung (talk) 12:51, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - previous AfD can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iman Farzin. Is there anything that's changed in the last few months that now makes him notable? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:04, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:04, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:04, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:33, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Note to reviewing Admin, the subject already created the page under Iman Farzin in the past which was deleted and according to discussion they were socks involved. So changing the name was just an obvious move to evade a block. There's also an article in draft here. Riteboke (talk) 18:09, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per consensus at last AFD. What has changed since? Giant Snowman 18:15, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article 99% describes what he wrote and cites him, i.e., it is not about this person. Lembit Staan (talk) 18:18, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - searching "ایمان فرزین" doesn't really yield anything that hasn't already been cited in this article. The biggest issue is the lack of depth in the coverage. Even if there were 100 trivial mentions cited in the article, this still wouldn't satisfy the requirement that WP:GNG has for the coverage to be significant, which means that it needs to address Farzin in enough detail for us to build a reasonable biography from the sources alone without having to add any original research to fill the space. This article is actually a textbook example of WP:REFBOMB, with the overwhelming majority of the articles/websites cited mentioning Farzin only once, either in a list of people or as a person quoted about some event or as someone that posted something on Instagram. There is nothing in my searches or within this article that establishes notability in the context of a global encyclopaedia. As with the previous article at Iman Farzin, I remain in favour of deletion. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:10, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt it's different enough from the prior version to avoid a G4, but still no indication to be found of meeting GNG. Star Mississippi 20:56, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and please block the account creating the article for gaming the system Mardetanha (talk) 14:56, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 05:25, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as a professional spokesperson, he certainly gets a lot of media mentions - but there anything about him, rather than just what he's had to speak about? Note, this article has been deleted 4 times in the Farsi Wikipedia - see fa:ایمان_فرزین. Nfitz (talk) 23:07, 23 August 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) 18:40, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bram Lebo

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

WP:BLP of a lawyer and entrepreneur, not reliably sourced as passing our notability standards for lawyers or entrepreneurs. The strongest notability claim here is that he founded an online newspaper, which is not an instant notability freebie in the absence of a demonstrable pass of WP:GNG on his sourceability -- but apart from one genuinely solid source covering him in that context, this is otherwise referenced almost entirely to the self-published websites of directly affiliated companies and organizations, except for a single (deadlinked) hit of coverage in a smalltown hyperlocal in the context of running for, but failing to win, a seat on the town council, which does not pass WP:NPOL either. Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have a lot more than just one hit of GNG-worthy coverage. Bearcat (talk) 14:04, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:04, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:04, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:04, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:04, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no indication of notability. Also created and maintained in its earlier years by two SPAs which were likely sockpuppets. Mccapra (talk) 07:18, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:29, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable lawyer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:46, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: non notable lawyer. Nitesh003 (talk) 13:22, 21 August 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 13:42, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Six (songwriting collective)

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

I'm not too familiar with the ins and outs of WP:COMPOSER but I am fairly certain that this doesn't meet either WP:GNG or WP:CORP. Nearly all of the content is uncited and I am unable to find any in-depth coverage about them. The only potential route I can see to notability is via COMPOSER #1 for writing the lyrics for Evering Road per this but that is a trivial mention and I can't see anything providing more detail either. SmartSE (talk) 17:12, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SmartSE (talk) 17:12, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:14, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable enough to satisfy WP:GNG. This page is related to the problem we had six years ago with promotion of songwriters and producers coming from THREEE (a talent agency). See Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_80#Erik Eger Entertainment and THREEE editing on behalf of clients. Now it looks like Triptik is the new THREEE. Binksternet (talk) 15:12, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Binksternet: There's almost certainly a COI involvement, but I'm not sure I see the link between this and that case, other than it involves songwriters. SmartSE (talk) 15:37, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was alerted to the connection by the edit history of Special:Contributions/86.31.120.143, who has edited Kid Harpoon in a manner similar to the earlier COI problem, and has also edited The Six. There is a group of Six-related articles that have are of interest to a small number of editors, including Jbyoung00, Whippy7, Mapofworld94 and the single-purpose accounts Sabbl, Kiykiy95 and Kitpirt. Binksternet (talk) 16:15, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:28, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The COI editing is noted. While some of the individuals involved might be separately notable, this collective as a notable entity known as "The Six"--which is the article under question here--lacks RS sourcing. ShelbyMarion (talk) 19:43, 22 August 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. This is a somewhat messy discussion, due to the revelation part-way through of undisclosed paid editing on the part of a contributor. However, taken in toto I see a consensus to keep, because the sources found by said editor have been explicitly evaluated by others, and found to be reasonable. It is particularly telling that one of the editors arguing to delete subsequently changed their opinion. Vanamonde (Talk) 13:16, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unqork

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

Blatant advertisement must be speedy under G11. I am unable to locate enough references that satisfy WP:SIGCOV with WP:CORPDEPTH. And fails WP:ORGIND. Let me elaborate more on references.

PitchBook: Press Release. fails WP:ORGIND
Forbes: Can consider
ey.com: Again a Press Release fails WP:ORGIND
Linkedin: Self-Published, not reliable fails WP:ORGIND
Crainsnewyork: I couldn't check this, paid suscription required. If anyone can check, please put your comment here.
Forbes: A list of Startup Employers of 2021 by Forbes, only a passing mention. DMySon (talk) 17:58, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 17:58, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 17:58, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 17:58, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:19, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Article fails to establish notability and reads like an advertisement. Page creator has contested the deletion on the article's talk page but most of the references they provided are either from the company's website or its Linkedin page. I'm also suspicious of a conflict of interest between the page creator and the topic. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:59, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I improved the article with more info and sources. They all look good now - better than the ones listed on the talk page. The company is a tech unicorn with significant coverage in independent third party sources. There's more in Crain's NY Business but it's paywalled so I didn't bother adding it. Satisfies WP:NCORP. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 00:22, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The Crain's NY Business reference relies entirely on an interview with Holloway (Unqork's head of public enterprise, tasked with bringing the company's products to the government sector), so fails WP:ORGIND which is a section in NCORP - can't see how you can say it passes NCORP. Did you read the article? HighKing⁺⁺ 14:34, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Unconvinced by the flurry of passing mentions and a literal press release put up as evidence of notability - David Gerard (talk) 08:24, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that PR doesn't work for notability, but it is allowed as a non-independent source, per WP:NIS, depending on how the info they contain is integrated into the article. Also there's a significant difference in both reliability and tone between government releases and corporate ones. Nonetheless, in this case, there was another independent third party source for the info cited, so per WP:OVERCITE, I simply removed the press release. There are a few passing mentions such as in the WSJ and NY Times, completely appropriate based on what is being sourced, but the majority of the remaining coverage, including Forbes, Fast Company, Crain's NY and CNBC, is in-depth, satisfying WP:NCORP. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:00, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it's perhaps marginal but there are better links not yet shown and meh not a clear fail. A simple Google is getting me 370K in hits, which is not much, and while much of it is just routine business press there is also a number of small-press or technical publications (e.g. techhq.com, crunchbase, techrepublic, sourceforge, aithority, morningbrew, venturebeat, alleywatch), and a few from larger media (multiple Forbes, CNBC, Yahoo, Medium). It's still a new article and growing company so I suggest let be for now. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:50, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. another minor point, there are only a few WP articles mentioning Unqork, but it might be a good to have a wikilink work. See CapitalG, No-code development platform, Goldman Sachs, List of unicorn startup companies. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:44, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - google news shows many many news about them, some press releases, but I found a few good ones to add and also expanded the article. Check [22], [23], [24], [25] Webmaster862 (talk) 23:39, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Your second and fourth sources literally say "Promoted by Unqork" at the top. Crunchbase is a deprecated source; at best, Crunchbase News would be as usable as TechCrunch itself, which is yellow-rated at WP:RSP and specifically isn't usable as a claim of notability; only SDTimes might be usable, and that reads like a lightly-churned press release. What made you think a source that literally says "Promoted by Unqork" counts as an independent, third-party, reliable source that clearly demonstrates notability? - David Gerard (talk) 23:58, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Seems that just makes two usable as independent (and the other two usable as company press releases). Software Development Times seems independent small press. And Crunchbase News has no rating at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources - that was recently looked at in RSN and seems OK, but it was cited only about 80 times which apparently is not enough to be in the list as ‘perennial’. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:46, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - "Independent" has two facets as per WP:ORGIND - functional and intellectual. Sure, SDT is "functionally" independent but the article relies entirely on this Press Release and contains zero "Independent Content" so fails WP:ORGIND. Similarly, the Crunchbase News article is based entirely on this Press Release and fails ORGIND for the same reason. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:04, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yes, thank you for acknowledging that passes the functional or ‘Independent author’ (/editor) part, and clarifying trade press nature. Otherwise, the above seems just saying this did the normal for trade press so those two are usable as independent as ORGIND implies and concludes do use them for notability but “use with care”. So consideration should perhaps be giving more importance to the coverage in Forbes, CNBC, Yahoo, and Medium - with trade coverage helping to a lesser extent of “use with care” because of the nature of trade publications and lower WEIGHT. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 17:21, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        And thank you for acknowledging that these "did the normal for trade press", which is to rely entirely on the press releases without adding any "Independent Content". Therefore fails WP:ORGIND which doesn't "imply" that if a reference has no "Independent Content" it can be used to establish notability - in fact says exactly the opposite. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:23, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Keep Changed my !vote as multiple references that meet the criteria for establishing notability have been identified. 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 Press Release or other Announcements or interviews, etc. None of the references in the article meet the criteria. They are either standard business listings or articles based on an "announcement" by the company - all of the articles I can find are within the company's echo chamber and I have been unable to find any "Independent Content" as per ORGIND. Topic ~~fails~~ meets WP:NCORP criteria. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:04, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As other users have noted, this company is regularly mentioned in the press and has been written about in numerous reputable publications like the Wall Street Journal, Crain's New York, Crain's Chicago Business, CNBC, Yahoo, Fast Company, and Forbes (and none of the Forbes articles cited are authored by a representative of Unqork.) This article has also been edited so it doesn't cite any press releases, in accordance with Wikipedia's rules. Dilbert404 (talk) 01:36, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dilbert404 - press releases don’t help notability per WP:ORGIND, but are usable as cites in the article. For example Microsoft has cites to their Investor relations, Corporate history, company vision, press releases, etcetera. Just remember it’s a WP:BIASED RS. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 17:37, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:28, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Company shows up quite a bit in Google News. Some are indeed PR releases, but those have been removed from post. I added link from Nasdaq I found with additional details [26]. Satisfies WP:SIGCOV with WP:ORGIND through coverage from WP:FORBES (not WP:FORBESCON) [27], WSJ [28], Fast Company [29], and Crain's New York [30]. Cheers 100Bunnies (talk) 11:24, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets general notability guidelines through multiple significant reliable sources, as explained multiple times above. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 12:16, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see why the combined sources mentioned here and on Unqork's page can't pass WP: SIGCOV. These may be worth adding to the page: [31], [32] and [33] (the third is already a part of Goldman Sachs). Heartmusic678 (talk) 13:55, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The first is a PR announcement by a customer who used the product and a quote from an employee, fails ORGIND. The second is a mention-in-passing about funding received, fails CORPDEPTH. The third is entirely based on this Company Press Release, fails ORGIND.
Delete as per HighKing.GermanKity (talk) 10:52, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
GermanKity: HighKing supports keep per available sources. Per argument, you too? gidonb (talk) 10:00, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So far, the reasons put forward for Keeping the article are:
- "a tech unicorn with significant coverage in independent third party sources"
- "there are better links not yet shown" + "A simple Google is getting me 370K in hits" + "still a new article and growing company so I suggest let be for now"
- "google news shows many many news about them, some press releases, but I found a few good ones to add and also expanded the article."
- "this company is regularly mentioned in the press and has been written about in numerous reputable publications"
- "Company shows up quite a bit in Google News."
- "meets general notability guidelines through multiple significant reliable sources"
- "I don't see why the combined sources mentioned here and on Unqork's page can't pass WP: SIGCOV"

None of those reasons carry weight in light of the very simply NCORP requirements which contain the criteria for establishing notability - specifically each reference must meet the criteria. So far, not a single reference has been produced which meets *both* WP:CORPDEPTH *and* WP:ORGIND. The links in the article and those produce above also fail NCORP and it has been explained why - Press Release, Company Announcement, interviews, mentions-in-passing, etc, fail NCORP. WP:GHITS is not an argument that has weight at AfD, you need to provide links to actual articles and the volume doesn't matter, it is quality that matters. Articles in "reputable sources" are assumed but they too must meet NCORP, you don't get a pass if it has been published in the NYT or WSJ. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:34, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:HighKing ??? But there are big coverage, and one should count trade pubs too. I don’t think this was speaking to the various big-press Forbes, CNBC, Medium, Chicago.gov, Yahoo, TechRepublic, etcetera. And I noted WP:ORGIND about trade pubs says “use with care” - the word is “use”. So please *use* those trade pubs, just like ORGIND says one should. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 18:04, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
p.s. Also, some minimum Google counts is indicated as needed in WP:GHITS, and Google News is spoken of as a positive but not required. Like your wikilinks to policy but... Suggest focus more on what the need is or strength is per NCORP and at what criteria are wanted, or granting time to the NEWPAGE, and less about seeking ATA what parts don’t count because... talking about things that don’t matter doesn’t matter. I’m still at thinking it marginal but meh OK to keep. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 19:07, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This critique is *not* an accurate framing of coverage. To quote: "The links in the article and those produce above also fail NCORP and it has been explained why - Press Release, Company Announcement, interviews, mentions-in-passing, etc, fail ... you need to provide links to actual articles and the volume doesn't matter, it is quality that matters. Articles in "reputable sources" are assumed but they too must meet NCORP, you don't get a pass if it has been published in the NYT or WSJ." The mentions in WSJ [34] and Forbes [35] are substantial features profiling the company and it's platform. These are *not* "Press Release, Company Announcement, interviews, mentions-in-passing, etc." as you describe them. They are full, focused features in WP:RSP that cover business and tech. 100Bunnies (talk) 14:36, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how many different ways this has to be explained for you to get it. Please carefully read the section on "Independent Content" in WP:ORGIND and the requirements for "in-depth coverage" in WP:CORPDEPTH. Then look at the articles you've linked to.

Take the WSJ reference for example. The third paragraph sets the scene for much of the article - it says that Holloway (an employee) got a call from Tisch of NYC's IT dept. The article then relies entirely on Holloway's account of the request and the work done by the company finishing with a description from Garcia from NYC's Dept of Sanitation of how the newly developed system works. The rest of the article has nothing to do with the topic company, it describes NYC's food programs. So you tell me ... which parts of this article contains in-depth information on the company which was provided by somebody unaffiliated with the company?

The Forbes article relies entirely on an interview with Hoberman, CEO and founder or the topic company. The article is peppered with quotes, facts and data attributed directly to Hoberman and the company including funding raised, customer experience and benefits (with information from Liberty Mutual, an early customer, definitely not "unaffiliated" to the company), a screenshot of the product (provided by the topic company), information on the market for the product with generic quotes from analysts (nothing *about* the topic company) and finally a description from Hoberman on how he will spend the latest investment. Again, you tell me ... which parts of this article contains in-depth information on the company which was provided by somebody unaffiliated with the company?

Your protests that the coverage is made up of "substantial features profiling the company" and are "full, focused features" may be true in one sense, in that the in-depth information was provided by an employee and/or the company, but they will still fail our criteria for establishing notability is there is no "Independent Content". HighKing⁺⁺ 13:52, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

re: WSJ. This is a quote from the article, which I must assume was cross-checked and vetted by WSJ editorial staff: "The city needed Unqork to build a digital platform that would allow residents to order free meals to be delivered by the thousands of city-licensed taxi and ride-share drivers who were desperate for work. Could Unqork get this done over the weekend?" I don't believe WSJ does churnalism or would simply re-blog a PR release. If that was the case, they should really be removed from WP:RS.

A similar story was told in the Fast Company feature [36]: "Once the Unqork system was up and running, getting people the right information and services became rapidly streamlined, says Chris Geldart, the director of the D.C. Department of Public Works who was tapped by Mayor Muriel Bowser to lead local operations in response to the virus. 'The ability for us to use this tool early on helped with that—made it much less labor intensive' he says."

re: Forbes. It's not an interview feature or a profile of the CEO. I doubt he would talk about the direct competition in the space as is contextualized at the bottom. Once again, Forbes is on the list of WP:RS and I can only assume any facts or comments were vetted by an editorial staff and not churned over from a press release. 100Bunnies (talk) 22:10, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

re WSJ, even assuming that the single example sentence you've extracted from the article meets ORGIND, it fails CORPDEPTH. WP:SIRS says a reference must meet all the criteria which includes ORGIND and CORPDEPTH. You can't pick one sentence from a reference and say "that meets ORGIND" and then pick another from the same article with some in-depth information provided by the company and say "that meets CORPDEPTH" and therefore the entire article meets the criteria. Doesn't work like that.

re FastCompany, that quote was provided by a customer which focuses on the NYC case study. Not an "unconnected source" and not an independent case study (if you search you can download a PDF of Unqork's case studies including one entitled "NYC Used No-Code to Mount a Rapid Digital Response to COVID-19").

re Forbes, the dead giveaway is that the images for the article have all been provided by the topic company and the mention of competitors is not uncommon for these types of articles. If Hoberman wasn't interviews then, how come the article can tell us what he intends to use the money to do? And no, the fact that this article appears on the "sites" portion of Forbes means that the default assumption is that none of the facts or comments "were vetted by an editorial staff".

For me, this is a case of WP:TOOSOON. I can see that there are analysts like Gartner and Forrester who have commented on the marketplace but to date do not appear to have published any in-depth research which would normally profile the leading companies. When this happens, those research reports are pretty much guaranteed to meet NCORP and if this topic company is profiled, may be used to establish notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:23, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is this recent Forrester report[37] if that counts as a third party source:

"Unqork is the rookie of the year" <--sounds pretty notable to me. "The New York startup has captured attention with its recent $2 billion valuation and its brassy “no-code” marketing efforts. Strategically, the ﬁrm uses its internal experience and strong SI partnerships to focus almost exclusively on serving the needs of ﬁnancial services, insurance, public sector, and healthcare customers. This market approach is paying strong dividends: For all its brassiness (and a whiff of hype), Unqork knows its verticals and may have disruption in its DNA. [...] The development tooling is process-modeling-centric, and data transformation and manipulation are performed througha deep conﬁgurator. An unusually high number of styling options are provided for UI design. [...] We expect great things from this young company, but at this point, ﬁrms in its focus verticals or that aggressively buy into its no-code philosophy should primarily consider Unqork..." 100Bunnies (talk) 15:00, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please Note: The Keep comments by these accounts strongly smell like sock puppets of a master here. User:100Bunnies : Total 3 contributions only on Unqork page and its afd check here. User:Dilbert404 : Creator of the article. Only 40 edits and created two company articles Unqork and other which is again a promotion Fast Radius, check here. User:Markbassett: Rarely participate in afd and check this user's talk page history, time to time he deletes controversial conversations from his page, [check here]. DMySon (talk) 17:42, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It seems that the main issue here is a fundamental disagreement over what sources satisfy WP:ORGIND, whether or not WP:GHITS is enough to indicate notability, and what sources count as independent. Maybe it's time for a happy medium, like one of Wikipedia's alternatives to deletion. Perhaps incubation or the addition of relevant tags? Let's work toward a solution. Dilbert404 (talk) 21:49, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A big no. Promotion of a startup company which is nowhere passes WP:CORP and fails WP:GNG.DJRSD (talk) 04:51, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a promotion. As mentioned above. The company has WP:SIGCOV (i.e., full features; not PR releases, paid ads, or passing mentions) from Forbes [38], WSJ [39], Fast Company [40], and Crain's New York [41].100Bunnies (talk) 14:36, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As I've said above. *None* of those references contain any information/data that could be considered "Independent Content" as per WP:ORGIND. All of the information was provided either by the CEO/Founder or an employee or by the same "customers" that have been used for promotion in numerous articles. If you want to keep pushing the opinion that the meet the criteria, please point to the parts of each of those articles that you believe contains in-depth information *on the company* that was provided by somebody not affiliated to the company. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:52, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As stated above, there are numerous reputable independent sources, most of which are included in WP:RS. These are sources which verify any facts and figures (hopefully) and not just re-print press releases. 100Bunnies (talk) 22:10, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All true except for your interpretation of "independent". Check out the "Independent Content" definition in WP:ORGIND. If you wish to discuss in detail any of the sources you believe meet NCORP, just post below a link and point to the part of the article which you believe meets *both* ORGIND *and* CORPDEPTH (as per WP:SIRS criteria). HighKing⁺⁺ 10:41, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It seems like we're not going to get anywhere debating whether or not this company is notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia page at all, since that's just a fundamental disagreement between users. Instead, does anyone, HighKing or otherwise, have any suggestions on improving the content of the page itself that don't involve arguing about coverage? That might be a more constructive use of this discussion, either that or talking about alternatives to deletion. Dilbert404 (talk) 14:03, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the article can be moved to Drafts. For me, this is a case of WP:TOOSOON. I can see that there are analysts like Gartner and Forrester who have commented on the marketplace but to date do not appear to have published any in-depth research which would normally profile the leading companies. When this happens, those research reports are pretty much guaranteed to meet NCORP and if this topic company is profiled, may be used to establish notability. But until then, I'm not seeing any references that meet NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:23, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

From Forrester[42]

"Unqork is the rookie of the year" <--sounds pretty notable to me. "The New York startup has captured attention with its recent $2 billion valuation and its brassy “no-code” marketing efforts. Strategically, the ﬁrm uses its internal experience and strong SI partnerships to focus almost exclusively on serving the needs of ﬁnancial services, insurance, public sector, and healthcare customers. This market approach is paying strong dividends: For all its brassiness (and a whiff of hype), Unqork knows its verticals and may have disruption in its DNA. [...] The development tooling is process-modeling-centric, and data transformation and manipulation are performed througha deep conﬁgurator. An unusually high number of styling options are provided for UI design. [...] We expect great things from this young company, but at this point, ﬁrms in its focus verticals or that aggressively buy into its no-code philosophy should primarily consider Unqork. Unqork declined to participate int he full Forrester Wave evaluation process." 100Bunnies (talk) 15:00, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 100Bunnies, excellent find, that research report from Forrester ticks all the boxes for me (would be nice to add it to the article also). Can you find another similar report from a different analyst firm (usually when one analyst firm covers the space they all eventually do)? If so, I'll change my !vote. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:21, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the topic company mentioned in the equivalent Gartner report but you may have better knowledge about whether they've been included in any other research than me. But this type of in-depth "Independent Content" is perfect. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:30, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

* Hi HighKing. Agreed. I added link and reference to Forrester in the post. There is also an existing link to an analysis from HfS [[43]] already referenced in the post. I'll update with additional analyst content as I look around. 100Bunnies (talk) 17:18, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 100Bunnies, I'm happy to change my !vote based on the research reports. Thanks for sticking with the process and rooting out what was required. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:18, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I removed some of the poor sourcing that was recently added, restored TechCrunch funding news (TechCrunch isn't deprecated) and added an indepth research report, which seems to have been embraced as a clear sign of corporate notability. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:38, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer and other contributors 100Bunnies has disclosed on their talk (and now on their userpage) that they are an employee of Unqork; their contributions here up to this date have constituted WP:UPE. I haven't blocked, since they have no disclosed and offered to withdraw from this discussion and abide by the relevant guidelines, but I wanted to note that connection here for your information. Girth Summit _(blether) 20:02, 26 August 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. MBisanz ^talk 18:19, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Sean Winters

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

No third party talks about him, so he has no notability. The uscatholic.org link is not a third party, it is Winters' biography because he is one of the authors who published on the website. Veverve (talk) 17:33, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Veverve (talk) 17:33, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Veverve (talk) 17:33, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Veverve (talk) 17:33, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

His two books are widely held in libraries as shown here, not voting yet Atlantic306 (talk) 23:23, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:03, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete -- Two books and a lot of denominational journalism is not (or barely) sufficient for notability. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:43, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

notability means coverage not achievements, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 01:11, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:27, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the article has been improved since nomination with the inclusion of references showing reviews of his work in ten publications including reliable sources such as Publishers Weekly, Kirkus, Library Journal and others including scholarly journals. These references show that the subject passes WP:NAUTHOR criteria 4 as his works have received significant critical attention so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 01:16, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Atlantic306: And what do we say about the subject of the article? Do you have a RS for his date of birth, his education, etc.? Veverve (talk) 09:43, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Veverve: None of that stuff is necessary to be notable. Sometimes authors lead private lives, or don't talk to press or write under assumed identities. What matters is whether people write about and notice their work. I made a page about a fanfiction by an anonymous author that ended up on the front page because it met that criteria. BuySomeApples (talk) 07:12, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the author has received enough coverage and critical attention to be notable. BuySomeApples (talk) 07:12, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:10, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cliff Roth

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

No reliable sources found. Fails WP:GNG Sreeram Dilak (talk) 12:07, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sreeram Dilak (talk) 12:07, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Sreeram Dilak (talk) 12:07, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Sreeram Dilak (talk) 12:07, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The coverage is way below the level to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:51, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough news coverage to meet notability. Peter303x (talk) 18:13, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient coverage. Eagleash (talk) 20:23, 23 August 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. ✗plicit 10:56, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2012 Chiba earthquake

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

Fails WP:GNG. ----Rdp060707|talk 10:24, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. ----Rdp060707|talk 10:24, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:56, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Many good academic references, both here and at the corresponding Japanese article, https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%8D%83%E8%91%89%E7%9C%8C%E6%9D%B1%E6%96%B9%E6%B2%96%E5%9C%B0%E9%9C%87_(2012%E5%B9%B4) See also this article from Japan Today. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 11:27, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep References indicate its notability. Dimadick (talk) 18:06, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable event. Proposed for redirect previously and I've stated my reasons.--CactusTaron (Nopen't) 16:20, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per above Nitesh003 (talk) 12:19, 21 August 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. ✗plicit 10:57, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

London Buses route 96

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

Fails WP:GNG. ----Rdp060707|talk 10:21, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ----Rdp060707|talk 10:21, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Mentioned in two articles (Londonist and MyLondon) as significant as one of the relatively few London Bus routes that goes beyond the M25. Listed by ITV, a national news broadcaster, as one of the ten most crowded bus routes in London. News Shopper and London News Online ran articles focusing on changes to the route, which was over five years in the running. The route I feel this is enough to pass GNG. NemesisAT (talk) 10:46, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment since monination, I have added two additional newspaper sources. I have also added a council site from 2011 which, along with the Prime Minister's Questions ref from 2012, indicate how the issue of the re-routing was lengthy and significant. NemesisAT (talk) 11:01, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:01, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:GNG, as ably demonstrated by NemesisAT. The article mainly needs expansion to detail the historic route 96 and its predecessor, the 696 trolleybus route. Policy WP:ATD applies, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." Andrew🐉(talk) 11:16, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant Keep. I'm not keen on bus routes generally as encyclopedic, but this is certainly notable for its length and locations covered. (Also, I suspect that this "Bus 96" is the one immortalised by Gauvain Sers, though I haven't researched this.) RomanSpa (talk) 14:42, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:GNG Toviemaix (talk) 07:58, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: passes WP:GNG Nitesh003 (talk) 12:25, 21 August 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 O.S.T.R.#Discography. ✗plicit 10:57, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

30 minut z życia

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

Fails WP:NMUSIC. ----Rdp060707|talk 10:15, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ----Rdp060707|talk 10:15, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. ----Rdp060707|talk 10:15, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:01, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to O.S.T.R.#Discography. Fails WP:NALBUM per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 03:16, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. No evidence of stand-alone notability. I nominated it for similar treatment on pl wiki. (Update: the article there was speedily kept as the badly writtenpl equivalent of NALBUM makes any album by any notable artist automatically notable there per anti-NOTINHERITED logic, but I also started the discussion to change this exceptionally bad policy there...no other cultural artifact on pl wiki is auto-notable, just all albums, sigh). Hopefully this means that in the future people on pl wiki will also need to find sources and such about why an album is important, right now this not needed, so pl wiki discussions for them are not helpful yet. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:49, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. --Muhandes (talk) 06:46, 22 August 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 11:00, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Carolyn Salter

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

PROD deleted by article creator. Non-notable politician who lost House of Representatives election. Fails WP:NPOL as the subject has only served as the mayor of Palestine, Texas and fails WP:GNG as the subject lacks sufficient in-depth coverage from reliable sources. JTtheOG (talk) 09:33, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. JTtheOG (talk) 09:33, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. JTtheOG (talk) 09:33, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:59, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-winning political candidate. The sourcing provided/available is routine election coverage. (Also, an e-mail... what?) Nothing in-depth to suggest WP:GNG or any other notability criterion is met. --Kinu ^t/_c 15:13, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Defeated candidates for the US House of Representatives are almost never notable. Wikipedia is not a platform for candidates to post their campaign bios/drum up support, and that is clearly what is being done here with the first reference being a link to twitter.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:59, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A fairly routine defeated candidate. Doesn't even look like she had much of a following, and she's barely tweeting anymore... Nohomersryan (talk) 07:34, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for running as candidates in elections they did not win; the notability test for politicians is holding a notable office, not just running for one. But there's no other claim here that she had preexisting notability for other reasons independently of an unsuccessful candidacy, and no evidence that her candidacy was markedly more special than everybody else's candidacies in the sense that any significant number of people would still be looking for an article about her ten years from now just because of her candidacy itself. Bearcat (talk) 14:22, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Failed political candidate does not meet WP:NPOL. Bkissin (talk) 14:50, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although I have created the article, after having seen the majority consensus, I, hereby in good faith, endorse the deletion.

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 11:00, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mundella Primary School

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

Non-notable primary school. Hundreds of tons of explosives were dropped during The Blitz, not every place where one landed is notable and the sourcing for it is very weak either way. A Google search doesn't yield much of anything, either. JTtheOG (talk) 09:32, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I concur with JTtheOG's reasoning. RomanSpa (talk) 09:54, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:57, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:57, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:57, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable primary school. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:06, 19 August 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 11:01, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Farmers, Virginia

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

Taking this one to AFD instead of PROD. 1923 topos show a benchmark and one or two buildings along the railroad, newer topos do not show this name. Due to the fact that the name of this community is a common noun, I'm struggling to find anything I can tie down to being about this place in my WP:BEFORE. My BEFORE couldn't demonstrate notability; maybe others have some search filtering tricks I'm not aware of. Hog Farm _Talk 05:58, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 05:58, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 05:58, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

delete I see that this was copied into GNIS from a larger scale map, and I suspect that the label for Farmers Mountain to the north was mistaken for a placename. At any rate there is never anything there on the topos or aerials. Mangoe (talk) 00:15, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 08:49, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The 1921 Chatham 1:48k map shows Farmers in a slightly different location than the GNIS coords. I see the 1923 Chatham map showing Farmers adjacent to the Franklin and Pittsylvania Railroad and then it is not present in the next non-1:250k map from 1964. Pittsville, Virginia states that the railroad went bankrupt in 1932. The legendary Franklin and Pittsylvania Railroad says "The road bed extended from Franklin Junction up Hogans Hill, or Farmers Mountain, where the grade was so steep that the load always had to be divided with the engine taking part of the load up to Pittsville and returning for the rest." The 1923 topo shows Farmers Mountain NNW of Farmers. I did find Farmers mentioned A B C Pathfinder Shipping and Mailing Guide ... which is a list of railway and steamboat stations. Searching newspapers.com for "Franklin and Pittsylvania Railroad Farmers" found nothing. As this location has virtually no coverage and is not legally recognized, it meets neither #1 nor #2 of WP:GEOLAND nor WP:GNG. Furthermore, it appears that Farmers was a railroad station, so WP:STATION applies and this locale is not notable (enough or at all) to warrant an article as a station. Cxbrx (talk) 17:41, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per the extensive analysis above (which I had come here to do myself). If there's nothing on the topos, and there's nothing in the newspaper archives or books... time to stick a fork in it. jp×g 09:22, 24 August 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. Unanimously, minus the SPAs and socks. Sandstein 19:26, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anjali Phougat

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

Not notable. She's a mid-level exec with a side hustle. Neither the day job nor the design work establish notability. Cabayi (talk) 07:28, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 07:28, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 07:28, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 07:28, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 07:28, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP This person has achieved great success and her film won best short film award and she presented her collection on Cannes film festival and have significant coverage in reliable sources. Not everyone accomplish and get so many recognitions from international institutes by doing side hustle. very well deserved to be on the platform since she is inspiration to many fellow woman's and continuously working towards social causes. Kayle123 (talk) 18:54, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

— Kayle123 (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and this XFD page. Cabayi (talk) 19:30, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

— no longer true, as Kayle123 has made other edits. David notMD (talk) 00:21, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Based on my WP:BEFORE and a review of the article and its sources, it appears to be WP:TOOSOON for WP:BASIC or WP:CREATIVE notability to be supported by independent and reliable sources. There is a local FOX affiliate that names her fashion brand as one of several creating face masks for medical providers in 2020, a 2021 interview in The Tribune, a 2021 bylined Times of India article ("not only did she showcase her collection, but also won the best film award under the Global Short Film Awards category at the prestigious film festival") that is mostly an interview, a 2021 interview about her film in what may be a blog, and several posts 1, 2, 3, 4 from a website with an Ethics section that includes, "this policy should not be considered as universal for every scenario or as hard established rules", and "The news and information are sometimes reviewed by more than one editor and may include fact-checks." During my review, I removed sources listed as unreliable at WP:ICTFSOURCES and several other blog sources. Beccaynr (talk) 03:50, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Based on my review of the article and its sources, it appears that we should give time to improve the article and support by adding more reliable sources as a community and should not vote for deleting the article. I see good press coverage when google this person and strongly recommend to give time and improve the article instead of deleting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juliana000 (talk • contribs) 14:08, 19 August 2021 (UTC) — Juliana000 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

— Juliana000 and Kayle123 (above) have each been blocked as sockpuppets of Punjabier. --David Biddulph (talk) 04:23, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are really no claims to reach even close to WP:GNG or WP:BASIC. It must be reiterated that simply by being associated or related with notable stuff doesn't grant you notability. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 01:43, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as I have cleaned up the article and she has won some awards. We need some help with local language sources which I suspect exist. Pass WP:GNG. Hwa Sangwook (talk) 04:32, 20 August 2021 (UTC) — Hwa Sangwook (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Theroadislong (talk) 11:57, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article promotes her business. David notMD (talk) 04:43, 22 August 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. Pburka's assessment has remained uncontested. Sandstein 19:25, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kitty Empire

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

PRODded twice after the last AfD in December 2010, once in October 2018 and again today. Was redirected unilaterally in July 2014 for lack of secondary sources, but was restored at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2015_January_14#Kitty_Empire. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 07:17, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 07:17, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 07:17, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 07:17, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 07:17, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I note that previous AfDs have resulted in this article being redirected to The Observer – bear in mind that Ms Empire named herself after a track on a Big Black album, so that album could be considered an equally valid redirect target. Richard3120 (talk) 00:59, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NAUTHOR#1. There's surprisingly little written about Ms. Empire herself; perhaps this is by choice: she does write using a pseudonym. However a Google Scholar search reveals how influential she is as her reviews are widely cited in both popular and academic works. Writing in Popular Music v.36, Powers and Perchard call her "one of the UK's comparatively few broadsheet pop critics, and one of the most insightful". Schott discusses one of her reviews in Celebrity Studies v.10 no.1. Stevenson describes one of her reviews in his chapter in David Bowie (Taylor & Francis, 2015). She's quoted and cited by Neal in Journal for the Study of Race, Nation and Culture v.22 no.2. She's quoted again in From Feminist Mothers to Feminist Monsters (Springer, 2017). And one of her reviews is positively reviewed by Hogarth in Writing Feature Articles (Routledge, 2019). These are just a few examples, but I think they're sufficient to show that Empire "is regarded as an important figure" and "is widely cited by peers or successors." pburka (talk) 14:30, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I think the sources I identified are sufficient to write a substantial "Critical reception" section, and I intend to spend some time on that if the page is kept. pburka (talk) 17:25, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per pburka and my review of GScholar - WP:NAUTHOR#1 is supported by WP:SUSTAINED and wide citations by peers or successors. Beccaynr (talk) 00:18, 23 August 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. MBisanz ^talk 18:20, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bangkok–Chonburi bid for the 2030 Summer Youth Olympics

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

This page is not relevant to the bid anymore. There is also not enough strong information for a separate page to be created just for a bid. Yellow alligator (talk) 23:22, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Personally I'd support deletion, as the content appears to be a really fan-crufty collection of routine news coverage, but I'm not quite sure that there's a direct policy violation here. It's hard to argue that the GNG isn't met when an article is refbombed with so many news articles. --Paul_012 (talk) 16:30, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:36, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:37, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:37, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it appears to meet GNG, though the article could use some cleanup and rewriting. The article might not be relevant anymore, but that doesn't mean it loses notability, see WP:NOTTEMPORARY. Many Olympic bids have their own pages, but I don't think the Olympics Wikiproject has a specific guideline for bid pages and whether or not the Youth Olympic bids are notable enough for their own pages. We might need to open up a discussion about that. The page is decent enough as it is, despite it needing a cleanup, and I find it hard justifying deleting it at this moment. Kaffe42 (talk) 22:16, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:34, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 01:46, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - with the reminder that notability is not temporary and the assessment that this probably meets the requirements of our general notability guideline, does the nominator have any further contribution for us to consider? St★lwart¹¹¹ 06:40, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - hosting the Youth Olympic Games is a notable topic. It can improve certain domestic aspects for the host, like tourism and promotion of sports for children. Also the bidding is important since it is a long process and Thailand has never hosted the Olympic Games. The process of bidding to host this kind of games demands a lot of different departments to collaborate. However the English proficiency needs improvement. --Chris VDR (talk) 09:27, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2030 Summer Youth Olympics. The Youth Olympic Games are so low-profile that I never hear anything about them except from reading Wikipedia articles. They may indeed satisfy WP:GNG but I wouldn't want to suggest that they are anywhere near as high-profile as the regular Olympics. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:20, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But do you think having an article about an obviously notable Youth Olympics bid takes something away from the project's coverage of the regular Olympics? Like, we have an article about the Papuan eagle, but I don't think that takes anything away from the obviously better-known Bald eagle... We're not running out of pages, are we? St★lwart¹¹¹ 02:10, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm questioning whether the bid is "obviously" notable. Maybe it is notable, but of the English-language sources cited here, all of them appear to be the International Olympic Committee website or specialized sites focusing on Olympic-related coverage like GamesBids and Inside the Games. And all the non-English sources are in Thai. For an article pertaining to an international event, I would expect that sources of more general interest would be available in English. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:16, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, makes sense. Appreciate the further explanation. St★lwart¹¹¹ 23:45, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I disagree with the nom, however, because I don't see how it could be the case that "this page is not relevant to the bid anymore". If no other city is bidding, as 2030 Summer Youth Olympics implies, then Bangkok-Chonburi will be awarded the event, which would at least justify a redirect to the event as opposed to deleting the separate page for the bid altogether. It would be irrelevant to have a page for a bid if the bid was abandoned before making any significant progress, which is not the situation here. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:46, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 06:31, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as a necessary split from the main topic. Abductive (reasoning) 06:37, 29 August 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:55, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oracle Advertising and Customer Experience (CX)

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

There's sources, but they are mostly native advertisement or churnalism. Others are about Oracle's acquisitions but not about this specific suite. Some content may be due for Oracle or other children pages. MarioGom (talk) 17:39, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. MarioGom (talk) 17:39, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: In addition to the 4 already on the page, ZDNet has published a lot of content about the suite (I saw ZDNet on this "Perennial sources" list): 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. This one also goes into a lot of detail (note that this source along wtih others talks about the suite with its former name) and doesn't appear to be advertising. Not on the page but also provides more details: this one and this one. And I think the acquisitions are relevant because they were merged to form part of the suite. JlBranst (talk) 17:25, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT and notability concerns. This is blatantly promotional; all of the references take the form of reporting on Oracle press releases on "new features", and aren't about the product as a whole. Oracle_Cloud#Software_as_a_Service_(SaaS) might be a redirect target. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 18:21, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It’s an interesting point about the reporting on new features, but that’s pretty standard for most reporting on software. Just trying to make sure I understand what’s acceptable for references - are these not enough about the whole product: 1 and 2? Most other examples I’ve found have - what I would interpret to be - weaker references (Capsule (CRM), Microsoft Dynamics CRM, Microsoft Dynamics, Pivotal CRM), so I’m just trying to understand if I was overlooking something. JlBranst (talk) 16:20, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:50, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 19:26, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 06:14, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Responding to the ZDNet perennial sources comment above: being a reliable source is only one aspect of the notability criteria. A topic can be covered in a reliable source and still not merit inclusion on Wikipedia. The type of coverage and what is covered are other factors. Also, a topic must surpass the what is not criteria. In this case, all the sources are overly promotional in an obvious way. This leads to a situation where this topic appears unacceptable because Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion. This being a product of Oracle means it also fails several categories of WP:NCORP. I intend to Ivote later after more analysis. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 20:57, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: CX passes WP:PRODUCT. It is one of several of Oracle's SaaS enterprising apps, all of which have their own page, as adding their individual info to Oracle would make that page unwieldy. Per WP:PRODUCT, if a company is notable (as is Oracle), information on its products and services should generally be included in the article on the company itself, unless the company article is so large that this would make the article unwieldy. Here are more sources: [44], [45], [46], [47]. Heartmusic678 (talk) 15:18, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete based on my above response and this one. A product is not exempt from notability criteria as a separate topic from the company as this is. As stated above, there isn't room in the main article for this. So, just because PRODUCT says this item can be included in that article without necessarily being notable does not equate to fulfilling the criteria for having its own stand alone article. Also, the sources just posted are not independent sources.

The first and third source are paid for articles written by a research and analyst firm hired by Oracle contradicting ORGCRIT. And the author of both articles is heavily affiliated with this research and analyst firm. See the bottoms of both articles. The second source contradicts CORPDEPTH because it is an interview with the Chairman of Oracle. Also, the author is an editorial director at Oracle. The fourth source serves as a promotional platform for this product. ----Steve Quinn (talk) 02:06, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as Oracle Corporation is a hefty article and, as identified above, there is no room to merge this article. Per WP:PRESERVE, as the content here is verifiable, it should be retained and not deleted. Thus, this article ought to be kept. NemesisAT (talk) 19:47, 25 August 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 13:17, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wubbzy's Big Movie!

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

This is the second time that this page has been nominated for deletion. Last time the result was Keep, but I’m opening it up again after thinking about it some more. Yes, someone did produce a review from Dove, but it was only one review. One review from a reliable source is not enough to satisfy WP:SIGCOV. We’d need multiple sources for coverage to be truly significant. However, none have surfaced so I’m starting to think there are none. The best I found was just passing mentions, but that’s not good enough. I think the best thing to do here is make this page a redirect to List of Wow! Wow! Wubbzy! episodes. This thing is by no means notable enough for its own article. Helen(💬📖) 21:35, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:38, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:38, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Limited merge and redirect to List of Wow! Wow! Wubbzy! episodes#TV films / specials. One review is not enough and it isn't even really that much of a review, just a single paragraph once you exclude the quotation of the official blurb. Nor is the review even used in the article, which is currently completely unreferenced. There is nothing to justify an article. A little of the content could be merged if verifiable. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:23, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Wow! Wow! Wubbzy! episodes#TV films / specials As before, better described there than here where it's barely sourced and there's little coverage to be found. Nate • (chatter) 23:56, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the previous AFD found at least two reliable sources reviews such as The Globe and Mail. Also a second AFD nomination after 2 months is considered disruptive when the recommended separation is at least six months, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:46, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is better than the Dove review but only very slightly. It is still just a single paragraph. The content makes it very clear that what we have here is basically an extended episode of the TV show cobbled together with old material. If anything that makes it less likely that this deserves the meagre dignity afforded to made for TV movies and should be treated merely as a special episode. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:16, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I concur that this source is very borderline when it comes to WP:SIGCOV. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:56, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Atlantic306's rationale. DonaldD23 talk to me 15:00, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Dove is listed a as WP:RS and counts 100% towards notability. As explained in the previous AfD, "The Dove Foundation is a reliable source for non controversial subjects such as film reviews and is a rotten tomatoes critic." Therefore, the comment above saying that the Globle and Mail review is better than the Dove review is incorrect. In addition, per WP:RENOM, "If the XfD discussion was closed as “keep”, generally do not renominate the page for at least six months, unless there is something new to say, and even so, usually wait a few months." There doesn't look like there is much difference between this nomination and the first one that closed on June 2. Therefore, I think a procedural "keep" close applies as not enough time has gone by between nominations. DonaldD23 talk to me 19:55, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We have two (2) reviews of one (1) paragraph each. I don't think that this constitutes significant coverage. The other big problem is that much of the content of the article is unverifiable. It goes well beyond what the reviews say and nothing in the article is referenced to any sources at all. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:20, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't change the fact that 6 months haven't passed since other editors voted to keep the article. DonaldD23 talk to me 01:00, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per my !vote in the previous AfD. I'm also surprised that this was so quickly re-nominated for deletion after that relatively well-attended discussion was closed as "keep". I've trimmed some unsourced cruft from the article and added the reviews, so it's no longer unreferenced. DanCherek (talk) 15:13, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this was kept like two months ago. Has reviews, including Glob and Mail. Pikavoom (talk) 08:12, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 06:02, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Two very short, capsule-style reviews. IMHO that falls on the wrong side of WP:SIGCOV and thus GNG is not met here. Ping me if better sources are found. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:57, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nothing has changed since the last AfD. WP:DRV would likely not overturn that consensus, so why the premature renomination for content that was found to meet GNG, albeit barely, a few months ago? Jclemens (talk) 04:05, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - I do not think there is sufficient evidence to overturn the recent AfD. MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:12, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - There are mentioned sources and the previous Afd process of this article also convinces that notability can be met sufficiently.--Melaleuca alternifolia | talk 20:37, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. This discussion has been relisted twice and has now remained unresolved after a month. The point of contention mainly revolves around:

whether or not the subject meets the General notability guideline or Criteria for musicians
whether or not the main sources are of sufficient quality

There seems to be no agreement on either of these points. Seddon ^talk 23:56, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anyuta Slavskaya

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

Fail of WP:GNG and WP:NSINGER. nearlyevil 665 18:25, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil 665 18:25, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil 665 18:25, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:28, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:28, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:28, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. The subject is known for presenting a TV show for kids since a long while. However, I couldn't find any other accomplishments or any good sources. Moreover, there is no article in the Ukrainian wiki. Dr.KBAHT (talk) 22:45, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:43, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - can anyone clarify what these are: 1, 2 (rather substantive from the looks of it), 3, or 4 (where I think she is just name-cheked). These are all recent news articles. On face value (with reference to WP:NOENG), they certainly look like coverage in reliable sources. St★lwart¹¹¹ 03:11, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
First is run-off-the-mill coverage of a new song (80% of the text is direct citation of her), second and third sources are interview pieces, hence not reliable, while the fourth is also a photo gallery and direct citations of her related to her releasing a new music video. I would say none of these sources qualify towards Wikipedia:GNG. nearlyevil 665 06:02, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Hence not reliable"... why? A source is either a reliable source or not. A reliable source quoting someone or interviewing someone means it might be a primary source (rather than a secondary source) but it doesn't cease to be a reliable source just because it interviewed someone. If anything, WP:INTERVIEW suggests that a decision by a reliable source to interview someone is the very definition of coverage. The material might not be relied upon for contentious claims in the article, but that's another matter entirely. St★lwart¹¹¹ 10:05, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You would have to go a long way to convince me that glavred.info and hochu.ua are respected sources for entire interview pieces with musicians on their seemingly tabloid-quality entertainment section qualify towards satisfying WP:GNG. That being said even if these were reputable sources I would still very much be reluctant to accept two entire interview pieces as a pass of GNG, especially in the light of complete absence of other sources. I'm interested to see what other editors might have to say about this. nearlyevil 665 11:20, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We don't ask that they be respected, only that they be reliable. Independence is about independence from the subject. She didn't interview herself. Again, you accept that she has been the subject of "entire interview pieces", so what part of that doesn't constitute significant coverage? And these are just links from Google's "recent news" in English. If you search for her name in Russian/Ukrainian there are many more articles. But I'm sure your WP:BEFORE searches brought up plenty, yes? In which of the article's talk page discussions did you raise these concerns? St★lwart¹¹¹ 11:45, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I changed my vote after reading #3. It's not an interview. The readers have submitted their questions and the subject has answered some of them, like a conference. More importantly, there is an introduction explaining who she is and what she does. Therefore, this specific source looks good. The 3 others don't. Dr.KBAHT (talk) 17:24, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Stalwart111: The sources you presented satisfy independent and significant coverage in reliable sources. Interviews can be deemed significant coverage and they are acceptable anyway, with a mix of other sources. I haven't had a chance to review the references in the article yet. As you pointed out WP:NOENG is applicable to this situation. I have Google Translate so I was able to read these articles satisfactorily in English. I wasn't going to get involved with this AfD. But, oh well, here I am. I will Ivote below. Thanks for you efforts. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 23:02, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. 4 sources mentioned above appear to be mostly interviews and quotes, so not independent enough to pass the independent requirement of GNG. Please ping me if additional sources are found, I'm willing to take another look. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:24, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why so? She didn't interview herself... St★lwart¹¹¹ 11:45, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to be the norm at AFD. I've seen this in other AFDs and this is how I was trained to new page review. –Novem Linguae (talk) 13:02, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I can only suggest that either the training or the conclusion drawn were incorrect. These aren't self-published reflections or personal blogs, they are reliable sources choosing to give a subject significant coverage by interviewing them and transcribing their views. Primary sources for content verification purposes, perhaps, but claiming they aren't independent is a stretch. St★lwart¹¹¹ 23:29, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

. — Alalch Emis (talk) 21:44, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the nominator's responses above are entirely unsatisfactory and the claims about interview sources don't align with policy whatsoever. The nominator accepts the subject has been focus of "entire interview pieces" and hasn't provided a reason as to why those sources should be rejected. St★lwart¹¹¹ 23:29, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This topic satisfies GNG and SINGER. The four sources above provide coverage that is independent and they provide in-depth coverage in the aggregate. These appear to be reliable Ukrainian sources to me. It is important to take into account non-English sources per WP:NOENG. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 01:39, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There look to be plenty more substantive articles also https://www.google.com/search?q=%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%8E%D1%82%D0%B0+%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B2%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%8F&source=lnms&tbm=nws&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjZtbCw_rfyAhXA7XMBHUOmDuoQ_AUoA3oECAEQBQ&biw=1368&bih=769 Sheijiashaojun (talk) 11:49, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't look substantive to me. The best sources have already been posted here. — Alalch Emis (talk) 21:44, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the ones not posted are definitely "more than trivial" as the guidelines require: https://www.intermedia.ru/news/360988 https://glamurchik.tochka.net/274166-anyuta-slavskaya-zapisala-fit-s-shvedskoy-pop-zvezdoy-80-kh/ Pinging Novem Linguae for another look as they requested. Sheijiashaojun (talk) 02:44, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

These are promotional texts to accompany a new single. Promotional is actually worse than trivial. — Alalch Emis (talk) 20:24, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom (WP:GNG not met; WP:SINGER not met), and per Novem Linguae (regarding mostly-interview coverage). An interview is not unreliable or non-independent simply because it's an interview, and interviews in combination with regular reporting-style coverage can definitely reinforce a good look for SIGCOV, but there's a big problem when there isn't much potentially relevant coverage in the fist place (which is the case), and what coverage there is is mostly interviews. This view does align with policy. We can, and need to, look whether the coverage is significant on a per source basis, and not only as a general impression. Interviews are often long, and are something we'd generally call non-trivial, but they're very rarely in-depth. If you couldn't take a published text and derive a few factual, own-voice content points from it, that could (ostensibly) be incorporated here, it isn't really an instance of in-depth coverage, and generally you can't do so with interviews: obviously, an individual's views, and their claims (unless they appear somehow reinforced by the interviewer, editor...), are not good references for factual claims on Wikipedia, and can't form a backbone of an article. Keeping based on an argument that what's presented here is significant coverage would be kind of unfortunate. — Alalch Emis (talk) 21:44, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's not unfair, but we are talking about interviews like this that involve in-depth discussions of national policy (and other things) where the subject is being simultaneously interviewed by multiple people (thus the format). Yes, the information presented by her would be a primary source for the purposes of verification (we shouldn't for example, have extensive detail of her view on the subject of national identity and music based on that source, even though we could). And her activities are reported on in national newspapers like this which can be used to verify the details of coverage like this (also in interview form) which confirm she hosted a show on Kyiv TV (redlinked in the Television in Ukraine article). St★lwart¹¹¹ 05:16, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and read the entire interview. Two points that might be useful to note: 1) Questions were submitted by semi-anonymous users; 2) The entire piece is the subject discussing a regional youth project - I don't see the article as significant coverage of the subject, but rather of a project initiated by her. If anything, these sources could attest to the potential notability of the project, not herself. nearlyevil 665 09:20, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 05:51, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it meets GNG Idunnox3 (talk) 22:48, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSINGER. There is no sustained WP:SIGCOV of this woman or her career as a singer, just some routine interviews. There are presently three separate links to her own website in this article, and no fewer then four additional links to places where you can buy her music (Amazon, iTunes, perpetuummusic.ru), while the article has no time to include any inline citations. This article is a WP:PROMO for an unnotable artist and nothing more. Newshunter12 (talk) 13:50, 3 September 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. Nobody has made a clear case for merge-worthy information, or that this is a plausible search term for a redirect. Vanamonde (Talk) 06:41, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional island countries

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

Fails WP:LISTN. Also, List of fictional countries and List of fictional islands should have this covered already. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:01, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:04, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:04, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islands-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 08:05, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, and overlap with other lists — in particular, the section about the Caribbean Sea duplicates the scope of a section in List of fictional countries in the Americas. Probably lots of OR as well; for example, Swallow Falls in Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs is shown as a remote Atlantic island, but I don't think it is explicitly described as a country. The only two entries with references (about San Sombrèro and a non-notable YouTube channel) are both primary sourced. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 09:59, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/merge This is obviously a subset of the List of fictional islands and might be a reasonable WP:SPLIT as there are many such. Per policy WP:PRESERVE, it would be better to merge than to delete so that the edit history and attributions are maintained during further development. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:24, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any blue-linked entries to List of fictional islands that are not already there - When you only include entries that are both actually notable and are confirmed to actually be countries (as mentioned by LaundryPizza03 already, many of these are not), then a WP:SPLIT is not needed. Particularly after the List of fictional islands list itself is given a much-needed cleanup. Rorshacma (talk) 14:27, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of fictional islands. First of all, this is unencyclopedic fancruft from beginning to end, and the inclusion criteria are pretty unclear. To pick two examples of what I mean: 1) the Empire of the Isles from the Dishonored video games. That doesn't take place on Earth, and the rest of the list strongly implies it's for fictional islands in the real world. So which is it? 2) Atlantis. True, Atlantis probably never existed and it's likely Plato didn't intend for his account of it to be taken as historical, but plenty of people believe it was real and I don't think equating pseudohistory with fiction is a POV that Wikipedia really ought to take. Also, a lot of people say Atlantis was a continent and not an island. So.

This list is largely redundant to List of fictional islands. The only way this wouldn't be so is if there were a lot of stories involving fictional nations on real islands. I don't support a merge because this listicle is mostly unsourced and the obvious target is already full of unsourced fancruft such that Ctrl-C Ctrl-V'ing a lot more unsourced cruft would make it worse and not better. Reyk _YO! 15:05, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as seems to be WP:CFORK of List of fictional islands. Given how woefully sourced it is I don’t see the need to merge. Vladimir.copic (talk) 19:38, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or disambugate as seems to be WP:CFORK of List of fictional islands+List of fictional countries. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:10, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The reason why I think this should be deleted is because it lacks some important information and can be confusing. If you skip the title, you can't even tell that some of these are fake and some sounds like real places which is confusing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bogotodoliatatto (talk • contribs) 20:39, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Bogotodoliatatto: Your !vote is supposed to be placed at the bottom, and you did not sign your comment with ~~~~. I can't understand your concern, but it's clear enough for me that these are fictional and deletion is not cleanup. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 23:47, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't really recommend a merge as List of fictional islands is equally problematic and crufty. The best course of action would be to delete as failing WP:INDISCRIMINATE and being unable to put the entries in context as a notable cross categorization._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 10:35, 24 August 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 19:22, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional locations in the Godzilla films

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

Fails WP:NLIST. I can't find any similar list out there. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:57, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:05, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:05, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Here's the criterion I apply in this sort of case: as an encyclopedia we should include information that a non-expert wanting to have an informed understanding of a topic should know. For example, anyone wanting an informed understanding of the Superman universe should know who Lex Luthor is and should know about the Daily Planet. However, they don't need to be expert on the Lena Luther Science Explorarium or the Centennial Hotel. The first two are key parts of the Superman mythos, but the second two are story-specific places with no long-term significance to an outsider's understanding of Superman. The same reasoning applies here: most of this list is information that isn't needed by an non-expert wanting to understand the topic of Godzilla. Merge what might be useful into the main article, but the rest can go. RomanSpa (talk) 10:14, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:LISTN as there are no reliable sources that actually discuss the concept of fictional locations from the franchise as a group or set. While it looks like it is well sourced at a glance, actually looking at those sources show that they are basically just plot summaries or very brief mentions on some of the films in which some of the individual locations appeared in. There is a pretty heavy case of WP:REFBOMBing here as well, as the same handful of sources are being used as inline citations multiple times in a single sentence or paragraph.Rorshacma (talk) 15:18, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am not currently active on Wikipedia, but I worked on this article a bit in the past when it was PRODed. The person who applied the PROD at that time was sufficiently satisfied with the sources added that he did not pursue an AfD. The above two votes (the first of which seems to be creating his own criteria; the second of which falsely claims there are no reliable sources that discuss the subject beyond plot summary) ignore the fact that this article is well-sourced with reliable, verifiable, secondary sources, which is the criteria by which notability is determined. Some plot summary is to be expected in an article about fictional content, of course, but there are myriad examples in this article that go beyond plot summary, like Ishirō Honda discussing how budget restraints affected the settings, Yoshikuni Igarashi discussing how South Pacific locations reflect allegories of Japanese culture, inconsistencies between the appearances of same settings used in different kaiju films, etc. Also, it's worth noting that the sources used are only just a few available; you'll see I essentially stopped working on the article after Lagos Island after the PROD was pulled. The article can (and should) be improved more, but the fact that it's incomplete isn't a reason for deletion, and there is no deadline for those improvements to be made. The reliable sources added to it so far are satisfactory to establish notability and that the article should not be deleted. — Hunter Kahn 19:04, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The purpose of the criteria for notability is to identify what might be notable, not what definitively is notable. Your points about verifiability and reliability of sources only create a presumption of notability, not actual notability. This is made abundantly clear at notability, where we are reminded that "'Presumed' means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information." My comments above on the criteria I apply are not related to verifiability, reliability and so on, they are related to the interpretation of the phrase "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information". This is a very broad phrase, and requires common-sense interpretation: my criteria are one such interpretation, because we don't have specific criteria for this sort of fan content. Wikipedia seeks to be discriminating in the information it holds, and the best practical interpretation I can find for this is "information that a non-expert wanting to have an informed understanding of a topic should know". Godzilla is clearly an important fictional creation, and a non-expert seeking understanding of Godzilla clearly needs some understanding of his creation and where he tends to appear. But non-specialists do not need to know about fictional countries like Rolisica or Selgina or wherever. These belong in another Wiki. Our goal in Wikipedia is not to be excessively comprehensive, it is to provide adequate comprehension. RomanSpa (talk) 09:37, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, this seems like a very drawn out and tortured way of saying that your personal, subjective opinion is that this article isn't worthy of Wikipedia, despite the presence of coverage in reliable sources. The basis of what belongs here on Wikipedia or doesn't isn't your sole opinion of what "non-specialists do not need to know". — Hunter Kahn 13:46, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hunter Kahn Can you tell us what are our best sources here? Which sources discuss those locations as a group, or talk about the geography of the Godzillaverse? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:13, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Piotrus, long time no see. LOL Unfortunately I'm not entirely sure off the top of my head; I'm not able to be as active on Wikipedia these days, and I haven't worked on this specific article for well over a year-and-a-half, and even then it was just edits in response to a PROD. If I get the opportunity to look into the sources and refresh my memory on it I'll let you know. — Hunter Kahn 13:46, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Godzilla (franchise). There might be enough salvageable to get a minor setting section going, but it appears much of the sourcing is pop culture fluff. TTN (talk) 15:55, 23 August 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. RL0919 (talk) 04:10, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Farnhurst, Delaware

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

An abject case of geography as game of "telephone", as it is pretty clear from the topos, once you go far enough back that the area isn't completely overrun with a sprawling highway interchange, that this is a rail spot; furthermore, Delaware Place Names, which GNIS uses as an authority even though the spot is named on the maps the whole way through, describes it as a "RR station, on the Pennsylvania RR". But "RR station" becomes "populated place", and "populated place" becomes "unincorporated community", even though there's ample evidence that there was nothing here but the rail line until someone replaced the old road with a freeway. So, yeah, fails verification. Mangoe (talk) 04:03, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 04:07, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 04:07, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per refs. 09:44, 18 August 2021 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Djflem (talk • contribs) 09:44, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that I do not find a mere listing of a place as a "postal village" convincing. In the first place, it's pretty clear that it's just shorthand for "a village with a post office", but given the problems with various authorities assuming placenames are villages— the issue that is driving all this cleanup in the first place— it's particularly telling that a topo from only two years after the gazetteer shows no villages, only a single building by the tracks (presumably the station) and the hospital complex a short ways to the north (labelled "alms house" in this era). Neither does the first aerial of the area in 1937, nor any other aerial thereafter. The references to the interchange give it a name but do not turn the surrounding locale into a settlement.

The Delaware State Hospital is probably worth an article in itself, and were that article created, I would probably suggest redirecting this to it, with an appropriate passage about its proximity to the station. But it does not now exist. Mangoe (talk) 19:30, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The presupposition that a community needs to be a cluster is misguided. Rural communities (and their subsequent suburban sprawl) do not have to have an urban density to be a settlement with a name and identity. (Harlem Valley–Wingdale station and the Harlem Valley State Hospital are in a semi-rural area, which most would identify as Wingdale, which is spread out. Not exactly comparably, because of the diff in DE & NY civic/political structures interestingly similar.) That the coordinates given "appear to be of the former train station location" does not necessarily mean that was the one and only location known as Farnhurst. (As has been oft mentioned & again above, since GNIS is often wrong, why base the argument with information provide by that oft incorrect reference. Why would everything else be wrong, but the coords correct?) It is quite clear the Delaware State Hospital was IN Farnhurst, that's why people called it Farnhurst (as is cited), so Farnhurst clearly was/is a greater than the immediate vicinity of the station/coordinates (as is clearly the case with other Delaware communities such as Redden and Overbrook. If you can find a reference to say it was near the train station that would be helpful. Djflem (talk) 21:37, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've found 1920 census population data for Farnhurst, and it was indeed considered a town/village even back then, with a population of 332. I would have already added this citation to this article (and all Delaware communities mentioned on page 175), but the number of Delaware-related deletions in the last few weeks has outpaced my ability to add references (I've been traveling), and additionally one of my PDFs (the 1900 one) has gone corrupt. Still, though, Farnhurst meets WP:GEOLAND as a populated place, with a verifiable population listed in serious reference works. I don't know why we would delete an article on a place noted in other reference works. While there does need to be clean-up of sub-stubs, this article is no longer a stub, and I'm seeing some troubling dismissal of historic reference works (like the 1904 Gazetteer of Delaware) in some of these nominations. Assuming a printed reference work is incorrect in an AFD is troubling, because it's really the opposite of what we should be doing. Firsfron of Ronchester 22:11, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As it was a community with an actual population. As Firsfron suggests above, I would encourage the nominator to slow down the pace of Delaware AfDs, to allow sources to be found. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 12:08, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Based on the references that Djflem and Firsfron found, this seems like a notable place regardless of how you evaluate it. In particular, if older print gazetteers thought Farnhurst was worth including, I don't see how it's not worth including on Wikipedia. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 02:02, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, based on the expansion (although reading through it, I almost wonder if/when an article is written about the hospital, that Farnhurst and the hospital should share a single page. This location and the hospital seem to be tightly related, and I'm not sure that two pages would be the best route to go there). Hog Farm _Talk 15:29, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
comment I'm continuing to have the same issues with this discussion. First, the population number is meaningless: the hospital alone had more beds than that, even after a substantial reduction in the 1980s, so it's not impossible that everyone so counted was a patient. Second, the classification of places is something we already know that these geographic references have a problem with; after all, that's what has driven all these cleanup operations, because people assumed that these databases of placenames were accurate, though it was readily proven that they weren't and that they had to be validated even against their own sources.

Looking at the expanded article, all the substance is about the hospital, and that includes the population number. And my problem here is the insistence that this is an "unincorporated community". I don't see how this description can be defended on the basis of me having to pick among the various sources, given that it's something none of them say, and some implicitly disagree with. Nobody says it's a rural community, and the evidence is against it being a town— and yes, I do hold that secondary sources have to be consistent with their supposed sources. If we're willing to call this a notable locale, I can live with that, but not a town or some euphemism like "community". Mangoe (talk) 18:39, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I generally agree with this. I really don't think that this was ever really viewed as a separate location from the hospital. Should probably be termed as a "locale" or such, and this and the hospital should have a single article. (probably under the title for the hospital). Hog Farm _Talk 04:42, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, there were two hospitals, here: the State Hospital (the Asylum for "the insane") and the New Castle County Hospital (which was also an almshouse for the poor). The population numbers aren't "meaningless": it's very clear the 541 people in the State Hospital aren't included in the 332 people in Farnhurst (because Math). The Almshouse's population (220) subtracted from the 332 people in Farnhurst still leaves 112 people. Farnhurst's residents (at least, those outside the Almshouse) lived on the grid of roads directly east and north of the two hospitals: Landers Lane, Central Avenue, Jansen Avenue, Lovelace Avenue, and what at that time was called Highway 13, as shown on the early 20th century map (post-1934, but undated) already included as a reference in the article. The contention that Farnhurst was never called a community is belied by the sources: Wilmington Evening Journal, 1901-02-19, page 4, mentions the village; 1904 Gazetteer of Delaware calls Farnhurst a post village; 1925 Premiere Atlas, Rand McNally lists Farnhurst among the towns with census data; 1960 World Book Encyclopedia lists Farnhurst under towns with census data (pop. 350); GNIS calls this a populated place. GNIS could be wrong, but all the others? Quite unlikely.

This deletion nomination was based on the belief that there was "nothing here but the rail line", but sources confirm not just the rail station but two noted, historic hospitals; a number of cemeteries; a post office; a stage stop; a school, and the houses along the Highway 13 grid streets, with multiple reliable sources reporting a population, here, that is outside of the State Hospital. Doing a little original research, aerial photos from 1937 confirm at least twelve houses along Central Avenue and Lovelace Avenue, and by the 1954 aerial, we can see more than 30 houses along those two streets, Landry Lane now partially obliterated by the Interstate exchange, along with the distinctive shape of the school to the southwest. The 1948 topos show 30+ houses along Central and Lovelace, and we can see these streets today on Google Street View.

Too many sources, here, call this place a "town", "village", "populated place", or even give population figures for this to be a locale. Firsfron of Ronchester 18:31, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As per my comments on the Landenberg Junction, Delaware deletion debate, I vote to keep because historical communities deserve to be documented and are notable regardless of size or what was built over them.--Fallingintospring (talk) 06:07, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per the significant expansion that's taken place; compare the revision at the time of nomination with the current article. It's hardly recognizable -- and I think it's unlikely it would be nominated the way it is now. Sure, not all of the sources are demonstrating GNG pass, but there's 29 of them, which is fairly substantial, and the article has a lot of fleshed-out prose that demonstrate their relevance to the content. jp×g 21:38, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 00:21, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Panjshir conflict

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

Lack of substantial information/ crystal ball The Gentle Sleep (talk) 03:38, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there is a lack of substantial information, which is why Panjshir resistance should be merged into this article. See that article's AfD nom and talk page and this article's talk page for further discussion. Zoozaz1 talk 03:40, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Conflict between the Taliban and the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan (2021) per nom. I agree with nom there is lack of RS indicating a conflict over Panjshir, ergo "Panjshir conflict" is inappropriate as a name. The sources in the article indicate merely that the remnant ANA forces happen to be headquartered in Panjshir. Chetsford (talk) 03:42, 18 August 2021 (UTC); edited 03:59, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that both of these alleged groups/ conflicts have only been suggested to have existed since yesterday, and there is far too much conflicting information to reasonably confirm their existence. At this point both are firmly in the realm of speculation, and creating a page at this time is premature. --The Gentle Sleep (talk) 03:46, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose This is getting out of hand, now there's four of them! On a more serious note, this article should stay up, don't particularly care about the name. The IRA forming a redoubt in Panjshir is well attested. As Zoozaz1 said, Panjshir Resistance should be merged into this article. BSMRD (talk) 03:48, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Don't forget the rename discussion on Talk:Panjshir conflict, at this point we are at five. Zoozaz1 talk 03:50, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this is ridiculous, I swear I've typed this a dozen times now. No, Merge, No deletions in my opinion. Flalf^Talk 03:59, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Stop unilateraly decretting something should be deleted, especially without looking the Talk page. This has already been up for deletion, and the final statement was a strong no. This is not premature. They are up to something, whether they do it or not is not what we should say, but general press consensus is that they prepare something, with some sneakpeak and rumors by various sources which are likely to be verified or proved wrong in a few hours. Deleting everything now is ridiculous. I feel like I'm going insane Larrayal (talk) 04:43, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There are different types of deletion, this was nominated for A10 before, which is a different type, Zoozaz1 talk 13:44, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Informative article requires no deletion. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 07:57, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:06, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:06, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:06, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose to deletion, weak support of rename Calling it a "conflict" before there's any RS reports of new fighting between Taliban and the Resistance in Panjshir (Give it a few days) is premature and possibly Crystal Ball, but I disagree in outright deleting the article. If anything must change, it should be the title, until there's confirmed new clashes. Until then, let the article exist until further reevaluation maybe needed. RopeTricks (talk) 10:56, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose to deletion, strong support for rename It is a conflict of course but it should be named "Panjshir Insurgency" or "Panjshir Uprising". This conflic has a right to get represented in Wikipedia so people can read about it. (User ip: 88.230.225.202) 15:19, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Oppose deletion. Let the sources build up over the next few days to see if a merge or rename is justified for this article or the other one. Boud (talk) 15:50, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose deletion Per above. --Franz Brod (talk) 16:34, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose to deletion Per above. --Kiro Bassem (talk) 17:40, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, then consider renaming to "Panjshir conflict (2021)". That name might be justified by the conflict involving Lion of Panjshir - tens of years ago during the Panjshir offensives. 89.8.169.11 (talk) 20:41, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose this article can be expanded at any time and probably will in the future when more information comes out. BigRed606 (talk) 22:14, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Apparently, the other article (Panjshir resistance) has allegedly been targeted for deletion by pro-Taliban groups. Not saying everyone aggreing with the deletion is, but we should stay vigilant. Larrayal (talk) 01:14, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The notion that the other article has been targeted for deletion by unknown "pro-Taliban groups" is patently absurd. Zoozaz1 talk 01:38, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to agree with Zoozaz1; if I were the Taliban I'd want "Panjshir resistance" kept up as it delegitimizes such as resistance movement by ascribing to it totally provincial, versus national, characteristics by calling it "Panjshir resistance" in the same way this article does by inaccurately calling it "Panjshir conflict". Though, either way, Taliban members are welcome to edit WP provided they're not engaged in off-Wiki canvassing. Chetsford (talk) 02:31, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're probably right, sorry for panicking. Although for the stalemate at this point we should be especially cautious about talks of fight reprisal because it could be a third part trying to frame the Talibans or the IRA as disrespecting the peace process and trigger an effect domino. Or the contrary. This page and the revolution one should be semi-protected to avoid vandalism, as speaks of peace will likely occur tomorrow and trigger reactions, and as some Asian press seems to rely heavily on wikipedia articles to get easy information. I feel everyone involved is slowly becoming insane, so less edits from unregistered users would be a benediction. Don't know how or where to phrase that. Larrayal (talk) 03:20, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea! Chetsford (talk) 04:09, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion, speedy close This is a conflict that has implications all over the world, and it's clearly notable. --Aknell4 (talk · contribs) 21:58, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A WP:SNOW close is needed by someone not involved. We have an overwhelming consensus not to delete. The merge or rename suggestions are in separate threads, not here. Boud (talk) 00:17, 20 August 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. ✗plicit 03:09, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good Design Award (Japan)

AfDs for this article:

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

Subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. All the sources I could find in Japanese or English seem to be from the institute giving the award, social media, or press releases from awardees. There's no secondary coverage. For those editors that point to the Japanese-language Wikipedia article, that article relies almost entirely upon one source: Japan Institute of Design Promotion who hands out the awards. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:06, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:08, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:08, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Awards-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:09, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to be notable in academia:

史郎, 青木; 淳, 秋元; 夢非, 劉 (2012). "グッドデザイン賞の歴史と現状(グッドデザインと機械工学)". 日本機械学会誌. 115 (1119): 72–81. doi:10.1299/jsmemag.115.1119_72.
Sakuma, Ayaki; Ono, Kenta; Watanabe, Makoto (2014). "Study on Reconstruction of the Design Evaluation Process and Criteria Intended for Good Design Award". Proceedings of the Annual Conference of Jssd. 61: 137. doi:10.11247/jssd.61.0_137.
雄亮, 蘆澤 (2016). "デザイン賞制度のあり方に関する考察（１）". 日本デザイン学会研究発表大会概要集. 63: 97. doi:10.11247/jssd.63.0_97.
充, 北村; 和宏, 中本; 健太, 小野; 誠, 渡邉 (2013). "グッドデザイン賞におけるユーザインタフェースデザイン評価方法についての検討". デザイン学研究. 60 (4): 4_97–4_104. doi:10.11247/jssdj.60.4_97.
原, 泰史; 吉岡（小林）, 徹; 蘆澤, 雄亮 (April 2017). "グッドデザイン賞の研究用データベースの概要とその利用". {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
安田, 利宏; 北尾, 靖雅 (2020-02-03). "分譲住宅の設計手法の研究 : グッドデザイン賞を受賞した計画を対象として". repo.kyoto-wu.ac.jp. Retrieved 2021-08-04.
哲朗, 工藤, 徹野瀬, 尚起苅谷 (2018-06-19). デザイン分析～良いデザインを考える～. 秋田県立大学. OCLC 1060446449.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

Jumpytoo Talk 02:04, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This award has been mentioned by many academic treatises and has received a lot of attention.[48] Ivoory432 (talk) 10:24, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:46, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:36, 18 August 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. WP:SNOW keep, the vote is something like 20-2 in favor of not deleting the article. Renames and/or merges are being discussed on the talk page. (non-admin closure) User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 04:41, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Panjshir resistance

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

This article copies, word for word, 60% of the text from Panjshir conflict [49]. The remaining text is a hodge-podge of WP:OR from non-RS like Tweets mixed together with some creative WP:SYNTH from RS. Chetsford (talk) 02:26, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Panjshir conflict into this article. This article is longer, older, and better developed than the conflict article and is not burdened by constant renaming (around 8 or so in the past few hours for Panjshir conflict). Almost of all of Panjshir conflict's text, as mentioned above, is duplicated here. The theoretical difference is that this article is to detail the resistance group while the other is to detail the conflict, but practically at this point with the amount of (shared) content they should be the same article. Zoozaz1 talk 02:30, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(a) It's copied because you copy/pasted it [50] from Panjshir conflict to Panjshir resistance. (b) Merging this to Panjshir conflict was already rejected as patently ridiculous. We would not merge World War II into Imperial Japanese Navy; we would not merge Napoleonic Wars into French Army; we would not merge War of 1812 into Royal Navy. (c) "Panjshir resistance" fails WP:CORPDEPTH. The existence of such an organization is sourced to Tweets and creative SYNTH. Chetsford (talk) 02:32, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did copy much of the material, because it was relevant to both articles. There is clearly a resistance in Panjshir; that is not being disputed. The formal organizational structure of that resistance, as you picked up on, is, but that is separate from the existence of the resistance. This is a very minor conflict at this point, and there is no need nor enough content for two articles. Zoozaz1 talk 02:37, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"there is no need nor enough content for two articles" Agreed. After we strip out all the non-RS and SYNTH from this one it's just a verbatim duplicate of Panjshir conflict. We can go ahead and delete Panjshir resistance. As you note, there is no need for two articles. Chetsford (talk) 02:41, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As long as the content is moved, I don't have a problem with merging it into Panjshir conflict instead. Zoozaz1 talk 02:51, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not sure why an AFD is necessary when the articles could have just been merged (as I proposed on the talk page). User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 02:30, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Both articles have been a good source of information for me, so I urge that any merger or deletion is done in such a way that vital information on the status of Afghanistan and the conflict isn't lost --KingSepron (talk) 02:38, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Panjshir Conflict/Islamic Republic of Afghanistan The "Panjshir Resistance" is not an actual organization, just whats left of the IRA in the country making a stand in Panjshir. No reason for this to have its own article when the information within is covered better under one of those two headings. BSMRD (talk) 02:43, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I propose a decision be held off until further information and/or developments are available regarding the resistance group. There may be sufficient information to warrant the two separate articles.Sideriver84 (talk) 15:36, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Realistically, this sounds like the most sensible choice. Zoozaz1 talk 03:02, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose The organization behind the resistance and the conflict itself are two separate things, although I think we may need to wait awhile until both the conflict and the organization become more defined as time progresses before we truly make a decision, we don't know if this will even turn into a full conflict. Flalf^Talk 03:04, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment More discussion has taken place on the talk page itself Flalf^Talk 03:06, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support for deletion I have also nominated Panjshir conflict for deletion, since both pages have the same flaws. There is simply not enough information to verify the existence of either, they were both only alleged to have existed since yesterday, and there is far too much conflicting information at this time. Both pages should be deleted and possibly created at a later date if/ when these topics can be reasonably proven through reliable sources to be based in reality, and if/when there is enough information to justify devoting pages to these topics rather than wild speculation. --The Gentle Sleep (talk) 03:51, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose deletion. A merge should be considered if there is insufficient material after waiting a few days to see if there is sufficient RS'd material for the people/organisation on one side (the 'resistance' article), and the military events (the 'conflict' article). Boud (talk) 04:01, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose Due to poor information (and reliability of information), it is way too early to talk about deletion, and whether there's an organization, a govt in exile (which for now is still internationaly Ghani), a military operation or anything else, it falls under WP:CRYSTAL either to say there is something or there isn't anything yet. Keep the two articles, merge after a 4-5 days if nothing happens, delete after 8-10 days if more nothing happens. Larrayal (talk) 04:12, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Improve the article in response to the faults, wait and see whether it will meet notability standards. Keepcalmandchill (please ping in responses) (talk) 04:14, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Improve the article in response to the faults" The fault is that the article is about a non-existent organization. Can you be more specific as to how we'd improve it? Chetsford (talk) 04:27, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Support for deletion There is simply not enough information to verify the existence of either, they were both only alleged to have existed since yesterday, and there is far too much conflicting information at this time. Both pages should be deleted and possibly created at a later date if/ when these topics can be reasonably proven through reliable sources to be based in reality, and if/when there is enough information to justify devoting pages to these topics rather than wild speculation. --Syed Aashir (talk) 08:00, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- If we were to delete it because "they were both only alleged to have existed since yesterday", we'd have to delete the new additions to the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan article, as well, but nobody is proposing that because it's silly. KingForPA (talk) 08:32, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:07, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:07, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:07, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Oppose At this early of a juncture, deleting it feels like a sort of reverse WP:CRYSTAL situation - assuming that nothing will come of a resistance movement that has already reportedly recaptured some territory. While it remains newsworthy in the current point in time, this is not something that should be even nominated for deletion. Check back in a couple weeks and see what's happened then. KingForPA (talk) 08:32, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose So far I see no good reason to outright delete the article, the article appears adequately sourced from non-fringe news outlets, and it's pretty much confirmed that Panjshir is not under Taliban control, and that anti-Taliban forces/sentiment are coalescing in that region, which has its own history of resistance. There may not be an officially declared, organized resistance force (It's only been a few days), but it would be premature to pretend there is no activity whatsoever by deleting this article addressing/acknowledging the topic. If it is still determined that the article be deleted, lets at least merge the important info to a parent article. RopeTricks (talk) 10:50, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose There is clearly a resistance movement in Pandjir. Its organized by two of the most prominent persons in Afghanistan. Macjena (talk) 11:14, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now - a resistance organization led by some of the most powerful figures in the IRA is definitely worthy enough of an article. I agree that there could be recency problems, but I think they can and will be addressed as the events develop. We should avoid blind recentism and stick to well-covered sources, but at the same time we shouldn't rush to throw the baby out with the bath water. I would be willing to support a merge with the Panjshir conflict article, if either proves too scant on content after RS have their say. Goodposts (talk) 14:30, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose deletion without prejudice to combining articles. The existence of the Panjshir resistance (Second Resistance) is readily verified by searching for sources published this year that mention its figurehead, Ahmad Massoud. It did not pop up yesterday; it is a contingency plan that has now been put into action. (How much action remains to be seen.) 73.71.251.64 (talk) 15:00, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose deletion - this article is the oldest on this subject and documents a topic of substantial relevance to current affairs Dan Wang (talk) 15:30, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As others have noted, its way to early to discuss deletion in this developing situation. The existence of the group is verifiable, and is being reported extensively in Emirati, Indian, and Russian media already at the time of speaking. Tajikistan has placed Saleh's picture in its embassy as the state head of Afghanistan, though that one thing has to be verified. What is clear is that the group exists, it is a new formation, and it is being discussed in RS. Hence, there are no grounds whatsoever for deletion at this time. --Calthinus (talk) 15:32, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose This is the only major group still opposing the Taliban, even if it only lasts a couple weeks it's still significant enough to be included in Wikipedia, there are Wikipedia articles for armed groups far less significant then this group.--Garmin21 (talk) 18:29, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and speedy close, article is notable and well-sourced. This is a pointless nomination and it’s nonsensical that the first thing readers see is the deletion notice. Clear consensus against deletion. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 18:51, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and SNOW This group is clearly notable as things stand now, deletion cannot be justified. There may be a case for merging this into Northern Alliance down the road, depending on how much of Northern Alliance 2.0 this is, but taking this action now would be WP:CRYSTALBALL. There is no WP:DEADLINE so keeping this as is and merging into an appropriate related article down the road can be discussed when the WP:RS consensus has crystallised further. Melmann 18:58, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose Per above. --Kiro Bassem (talk) 20:38, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose Sources indicate that there is a organized resistance to the Taliban in Panjshir, and as such it is notable for an article especially since it includes the acting President of Afghanistan --MarkoOn (talk) 23:14, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT DELETE. Deletion requests are coming from the pro-Taliban groups. - 2600:1011:B0E8:C271:8485:74E:19D0:E04A

I was about to say something like "don't have bad faith in editions of others" but I checked by myself and that seems indeed the case. So, Strong Opposse. --Jakeukalane (talk) 00:58, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep and Speedy Close This is obviously notable as it is the only part of Afghanistan that isn't in the Taliban's hands. It is well sourced, and it is important to document these things on the Internet's primary encyclopedia. --Aknell4 (talk · contribs) 01:20, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, Perserve the article and clean it up. The resistance its self is Wikipedia worthy. -LoneWolf1992 (user talk) 19:53, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep copious and continous coverage in reliable sources. Nominator should be careful to do a wp:BEFORE search prior to nominating articles for deletion. 69.172.145.94 (talk) 02:17, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, per above.--WuTang94 (talk) 02:20, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The resistance has received substantial coverage from many reliable sources. The article creation may have been a few hours premature, but this type of article is the exact reason WP:RAPID exists. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:24, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, only part of Afghanistan that isn't controlled by Taliban, well and reliably sourced, and the resistance itself is notable. Also, the fall of Afghanistan was front-page news everywhere, and because it is related to it, it is receiving attention for opposing Taliban; and it has the Vice President of Afghanistan on the resistance's side. Important and historical knowledge should be preserved, expanded, and improved upon, not deleted. ᐱᔌᕬᐱɭ☰ ᐱᒍᐱᕬ (Talk)

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 03:07, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

EkkoBSD

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

Prod removed so I'm bringing it here. No references. Fails WP:GNG Notfrompedro (talk) 01:53, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

delete short, stub, lack of reference -- FMM-1992 (talk) 02:19, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:09, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete created by new user; it exists but there's nothing more here. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 01:16, 25 August 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/draftify. Simultaneously closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahanchian v Xenox Pictures Inc., et al and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cyrus Ahanchian. Both discussions have clearly found consensus that this person and this case have not been shown to meet our notability guidelines, and as such, there is consensus to delete. However, I rarely decline good-faith requests for draftspace work, and in this case there is a possibility that one notable article may be rescued where two cannot; hence, I'm draftifying. I am going to WP:IAR a little, and require that, given the clear consensus in the AfDs, a) this article/these articles only be recreated via AfC, b) these discussions be linked in a way that the AfC reviewer will read them, and c) some source material be included that is new, substantive, reliable, and independent of the subject. Vanamonde (Talk) 06:14, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ahanchian v Xenox Pictures Inc., et al

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

This U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals case does not appear to meet WP:GNG. My search on JSTOR, Google, and Google Scholar turns up citations of the case, but no in-depth summaries or analysis. I welcome any editors with access to a proper legal database like LexisNexis to search for additional sources that could establish notability. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 01:29, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 01:30, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are many citations of the case, because the case laws which resulted from it are so important. In-depth summaries and analysis can also be found. Please give me a chance to edit this article and include them. Examples are [51], [52], [53]. Amirah talk 10:18, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I don't want to mess up the AfD by moving the page midstream, but be aware: the correct title is "Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures", with an "N" instead of an "X". If the page is kept, it should be moved to the correct title. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:07, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a particularly notable court case. KidAd • SPEAK 19:46, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ The case is notable due to the case laws which resulted from it. The 'Good Cause' law which resulted from the case has been cited over 480 times in Federal Court Cases in the last decade, that's an average of 4x per month. There are also independent reliable sources which have published in depth analysis of the case. Citations for some of these have now been added to the article. The reason they are difficult to find is because of the huge number of sources about other cases which refer to the case laws created from the Ahanchian v Xenox case. [54]. Amirah talk 20:13, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@AmirahBreen: What gave you the idea that Ahanchian v Xenon Pictures established that four-factor legal test? If you would actually read the case, you would see that that standard was established in previous cases and the Ninth Circuit was just applying it to the particular details of Ahanchian's case. (It's also not a law, but rather a test; I'm not sure what led you to call it the "Good Cause law".) – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 05:27, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Striking—AmirahBreen has !voted to draftify below. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 16:35, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ~~without prejudice to re-creation if it ever becomes notable~~. I'm not impressed that it's been cited by other cases. The case is a decade old; it's a rare case indeed that doesn't get cited in that span of time.

And the fact that it was listed as a "top ten copyright case for November 2010"? That's not much of a distinction. I'm open to seeing some numbers, but I'm guessing of the twelve courts of appeal (1st-11th circuits plus federal circuit in the federal system; virtually none in the state systems) that hear copyright appeals, there are probably only twenty or so copyright cases each month. "Top ten in month foo" is not all that impressive, in context.

~~If and when it was written up significantly (not merely cited to) in, for example, law review articles, I would likely change my tune.~~ TJRC (talk) 00:22, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It has been written up significantly in law review articles, I have posted the links above, and they are in the article too. Amirah talk 00:27, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't appear to have been. Of the links you posted:

[55]: routine news coverage

[56]; routine news coverage

[57]: law firm newsletter

[58]: mere citations without significant discussion in other cases (that's the "I'm not impressed that it's been cited by other cases" bit).

What law review articles can you cite to? TJRC (talk) 01:24, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Add'l comment. I sampled the first 100 of the 480 cites from Google Scholar (the legal equivalent of WP:GHITS). Exactly one case (believe it or not, the 100th of the first 100 hits) is from outside the Ninth Circuit, which speaks to how non-influential this case is; virtually no courts outside of the case's home circuit have referred to it.

The one case from outside the Ninth Circuit is Ott v. Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp., no. 12-2134 (6th Cir. 2013). Attorneys and law students reading this will note that there's no __ F.3d __ cite. That's not because I don't have it, it's because the Ott case is an unpublished case ("a decision of a court that is not available for citation as precedent because the court deems the case to have insufficient precedential value"). Ott (which is a one-page unsigned per curiam decision) cites Ahanchian for the unremarkable proposition that "A district court's decision as to a Rule 6(b) motion is reviewed for an abuse of discretion."

The longer I look into Ahanchian, the less notable it appears. TJRC (talk) 04:21, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify I would like to move the case back to draftify so that I can do more work on it, I understand what has been said above and would like to work on the article to establish notability. Amirah talk 09:31, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Are you going to strike your "keep" comment above? You can't !vote twice. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 01:45, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While I don't know of any Wikipedia policy against draftifying this, I strongly recommend against it; it's just going to be a waste of time. This is simply not a notable case, and it's never going to be accepted out of draft by anyone who understands the subject matter. If it somehow slips through, maybe by being reviewed by someone unfamiliar with law, it will end back up at AFD again. There's just nothing in here notable.

The article talks about a purported "Good Cause Law of Civility" that the case establishes, but there is no such thing. As Lord Bolingbroke points out, Ahanchian didn't even originate the four-factor test that AmirahBreen seems to think it did. A casual look at the case shows that Ahanchian cites a 1993 Supreme Court case (Pioneer Investment Services Co. v. Brunswick Associates Ltd. Partnership, 507 U.S. 380 (1993)) for the pre-existing factors; and that case in turn goes back to another case, In re Dix, 95 B. R. 134 (9th Cir. 1982), which itself, according to Pioneer Investment, cited to In re Magouirk, 693 F.2d 948 (9th Cir. 1982), which presumably goes back even further.

The case stands for the unremarkable proposition, not very different from those present in a number of cases, that when, due to multiple extenuating circumstances, an attorney requests a one-week extension to file a paper from the other party, the other party should be a good guy and allow it; and even if he's a jerk and doesn't, the judge shouldn't dismiss the case for the late filing. This is an incredibly routine case. If it had been an affirmance rather than a reversal, I doubt it would even have merited an opinion.

By the way: looking at the subsequent history of the case (Amir Cyrus Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures Inc et al, no. 2:07-cv-06295-JFW-E, C.D. Cal. Jan 12, 2011)) on PACER, it was settled and voluntarily dismissed by the parties, so it didn't go on to set any kind of precedent. Here's a docket extract:

12/28/2010 155 NOTICE of Settlement filed by plaintiff Amir Cyrus Ahanchian. (Daar, Jeffery) (Entered: 12/28/2010)
01/10/2011 156 STIPULATION to Dismiss Case pursuant to settlement agreement reached filed by plaintiff Amir Cyrus Ahanchian. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Daar, Jeffery) (Entered: 01/10/2011)
01/12/2011 157 ORDER by Judge John F. Walter. The court, having reviewed the Stipulation to Dismissal of Action With Prejudice 156 in the above-captioned action made by all parties, and finding good cause, that the above captioned action, United States District Court for the Central District of California Case No. CV 07-06295 JFW (Ex), entitled AMIR CYRUS AHANCHIAN, an individual, Plaintiff, vs. XENON PICTURES, INC., a California corporation; CKRUSH, INC., a Delaware corporation; SAM MACCARONE, an individual; PRESTON LACY, an individual; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, shall be and is hereby DISMISSED IN ITS ENTIRETY, WITH PREJUDICE. (Made JS-6. Case Terminated.) (jp) (Entered: 01/12/2011)

I'd really encourage the creating editor to move along to an area that with which they are more familiar, and where they can more accurately assess the notability of the topics they're writing about. TJRC (talk) 21:27, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 03:04, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Souzan Safania

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

The sourcing in the English & Turkish articles do not appear to meet guidelines as far as independence and reliability. A BEFORE indicates no coverage that would meet CREATIVE or GNG. Creator is refbombing without regard to quality in an effort to have the notability tag removed. Star Mississippi 00:17, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 00:17, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 00:17, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 00:17, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 00:17, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:59, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:59, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:59, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - clearly fails WP:NACTOR. In terms of sources, the only ones that look somewhat decent are Magiran, Theater Festival and Etemad. Not sure on whether these are reliable or not. The last two are interviews. The other references in the article are all either blatantly unreliable or just trivial mentions in press release material. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:23, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article doesn't mention even a single work in which she acted. If this person is a notable actor, there should be reviews of her work and discussions of the works that she has acted in that were notable. The article in Iranian Wikipedia also ought to be deleted for the same reasons. You can't just cite someone's Instagram page as the entire discussion of their career. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:37, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. It's very hard to make a case for an actress who hasn't starred in a single notable production. Kind of like trying to argue the case for a sportsperson that's never played their sport. It should be a clear GNG pass really for us to have an article on them. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:56, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It seems an article briefly existed on tr.wikipedia here, but was deleted today. Fails GNG. – Broccoli & Coffee ^{(Oh hai)} 23:47, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails GNG. Potentially speedily as G5.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 07:42, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete can't pass GNG. ZEP55 (talk) 09:59, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Mardetanha (talk) 17:36, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin it's now also a G5. Socking was not yet confirmed when I opened this discussion. Star Mississippi 18:55, 21 August 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.