Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 August 23

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< August 22	August 24 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was redirect to Yale University. RL0919 (talk) 23:02, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Whitney Humanities Center

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

Once you take out the sources affiliated with Yale (Yale News, which is totally non-independent, and the Yale Daily News, which is reliable but doesn't count for notability purposes because it's hyperlocal), we're left with basically nothing. The artidea.org source is totally trivial, just a venue listing, and Newspapers.org returns only event listings. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:58, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:58, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:58, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:58, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Yale University as nom. Courtesy pinging Arthistorian1977, who added a notability tag and marked this article as reviewed in 2018, and I'll drop a note on the Yale talk page. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 23:01, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Yale University. Nothing to justify a separate article. Edwardx (talk) 23:21, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Yale University per above. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:07, 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) 23:26, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chad Becker

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

Notability tagged for 4 years. I'm not an expert in the American soccer leagues so pardon me if I've missed something but from looking at Soccerway, Soccerpunter and World Football, it doesn't look like Becker meets WP:NFOOTBALL.

This local source is in-depth but WP:GNG requires multiple sources and I can't find anything else that goes anywhere near the depth required elsewhere. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:44, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:44, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:44, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:44, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:46, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 10:19, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – nah, you're not missing anything. Here's his LinkedIn, he didn't play a game that season with AC St. Louis and never signed with a club again. Fails NFOOTY. Keskkonnakaitse (talk) 19:57, 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. In keeping with prior consensus, academics can be considered notable based on coverage of their works, without requiring significant independent biographical coverage of the person. RL0919 (talk) 23:29, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Lowe (classicist)

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

No nontrivial coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. —Kodiologist (t) 22:23, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:27, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:27, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I just cut the indiscriminate publication list down to books only, and added eight independent published and in-depth reviews of three books (one of them an edited volume). I think it's enough for WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:09, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
keep. passes WP:NAUTHOR with multiple books and multiple (specialist) reviews. --hroest 18:00, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this author seems obviously notable. BuySomeApples (talk) 17:34, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Since all the above comments are talking about notability, I think it's worth emphasizing that I'm not suggesting deletion on grounds of notability, but on the basis that there seems to be little to no information from reliable sources about Lowe himself, as opposed to his works. Thus, how would we write a proper biography of him? —Kodiologist (t) 01:44, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Huh? This reference from the article appears to be an example of an in-depth reliable source about the subject. It is not independent, but since you explicitly say you are not concerned about notability but rather about the existence of reliable sources, that should not concern you. In any case we now also have eight in-depth reliable independent sources about his books; surely, if he is to be notable as a writer, it is more important to have content about his writing than about his favorite restaurants, family life, or whatever other non-writing content you think sources should provide. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:21, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Perhaps I have my policies confused, but I thought that independence from the subject is a concern for verifiability and reliability, not just notability. Coverage of a writer's writing is necessary for a biography of a writer, but not sufficient. —Kodiologist (t) 09:56, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - It is for a write but in general not for an academic or professor, if WP:NPROF applies here then the sources dont need to be independent. --hroest 17:07, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 12:43, 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. There is sufficient evidence here to show the subject appears to meet WP:GNG (mostly due to efforts by Muboshgu). (non-admin closure) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:26, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

John Campbell (baseball)

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

Subject only pitched for one inning in one professional game. That's the summation of this player's entire career. Only sources are statistical databases. A very marginal pass of WP:NBASEBALL shouldn't override WP:SIGCOV. A WP:BEFORE search as outlined in criteria D was done before nomination. For the inevitable NBASEBALL keep voters, before voting ask yourself why are we keeping articles on players that didn't even pitch an entire game, just one inning? Is this person really deserving of a stand alone biography for doing one thing that lasted less than 30 minutes of their life and was unremarkable within the broader context of professional baseball as a whole? Is this really encyclopedia worthy, or is just WP:FANCRUFT? 4meter4 (talk) 22:14, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:26, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:26, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:26, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Correction: Subject only pitched for one inning in one major league game. Big difference. He had a pretty long minor league career, including in the PCL back when that was the top baseball league of California (and was covered as such). BASEN exists because the entirety of his career is presumed to have coverage. What was your BEFORE search? If you're only Googling "John Campbell", you likely won't find much. But, sources exist with substantial depth of coverage: [1][2][3][4]. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:38, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that it also seems that he went by "Whitey Campbell"[5], that's not the same person as Whitey Campbell. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:49, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets the definition at WP:NBASE. 162 etc. (talk) 19:25, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per NBASE. Plus I agree with Muboshgu that PCL players prior to Major League Baseball moving to California and particularly pre-1940 or so have greater notability in general than career minor league players subsequently (but of course this particular player made it to the majors regardless). Rlendog (talk) 20:43, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- By the way, I was able to find at least one story about him [6] [7]. Rlendog (talk) 21:32, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - And another [8]. Rlendog (talk) 21:34, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Another, albeit from the same newspaper as the first [9]. (Oops, this one is the same as one of Muboshgu's, which I missed in my first reading). Rlendog (talk) 21:37, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:NBASE #2, per Muboshgu and Rlendog's reasoning and arguments. Ejgreen77 (talk) 06:01, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually Rlendog and I have shown that John Campbell the cup-of-coffee baseball player meets WP:GNG in addition to NBASE #2. And that should be the lesson for why we have NBASE #2: even these obscure players do have news coverage, and if you look in the right places you'll find it. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:09, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:NBASE. Best, GPL93 (talk) 11:08, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability =/= "major league only". RomanSpa (talk) 21:58, 28 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. Steal This File Sharing Book seems to provide enough content to write an article on, though there have been no further comments in the third week. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:48, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Simple file verification

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline requirement nor the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (software) supplementary essay. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar, this file format exists but I am not seeing any WP:SIGCOV or otherwise claims of significance. Can anyone rescue this? Is there something salvageable here? Otherwise, at best, a redirect to List of file formats might be the least destructive option. - alas, as far as I can tell, that article doesn't even mention .sfv, and neither does the List of filename extensions (S–Z), which really doesn't bode well here... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:57, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:57, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 08:13, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:28, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not pass the General notability guideline. --KonsTomasz (talk) 08:20, 9 August 2021 (UTC) blocked sock[reply]
Trim and Merge to Warez scene, the only article that links to it in earnest. The bunch of "what a checksum is" should be removed, leaving just the example and a concise description of format. Recommend using citations "DancesWithGrues" brought up in talk page.--Artoria 2e5 🌉 14:45, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:22, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

weak Trim and merge per Artoria2e5/Artoria providing I'm not doing it. I was trying to think of a use case involving fixed length files and couldn't find one and otherwise would have !voted delete or simply not taken any interest, but I am just able persuaded by the trim and merge. If redirected to Important "Simple File Verification (SVF) mentioned on the target. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 11:10, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep but i'd also be happy to see a merge result. This book appears to have coverage over three pages, just enough to write a meaningful article. SpinningSpark 17:09, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:SIGCOV. It only gets a mention in the journal articles and books you can preview via Google search. I couldn't preview the book Spinningspark provided. Even if the source provides significant coverage, that is only one source, so it still fails WP: SIGCOV. Heartmusic678 (talk) 17:19, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the book's subject is the acquisition of copyrighted material using file-sharing applications, and its title is literally "Steal This File Sharing Book", I think we'd be remiss to not avail ourself of the opportunity. jp×g 21:58, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: it was fairly easy to find a copy of the book mentioned by Spinningspark, which provides enough information to reference what the article says. There was a pretty extensive section of external links to utilities, which vanished from the article at some point, which I also restored (it may need to be trimmed, but at least some of it ought to be helpful). Not sure if this changes anyone's !vote, but I think it's worth throwing out there. jp×g 22:11, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jp×g 22:12, 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. RL0919 (talk) 22:59, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

American coaches of foreign national soccer teams

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:LISTCRUFT. The creator of this article has a history of making U.S.-centric fancruft (such as American professional soccer players abroad for example) and this one falls right in line with it. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 05:04, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:39, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:39, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:20, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per comments at previous AFDs. Giant Snowman 11:37, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article plainly meets WP:GNG. The article has 38 citations, and the references include U.S. reliable general interest media with high circulation, such as the New York Times, Washington Post, LA Times, Chicago Tribune, and Baltimore Sun. The references include internationally prominent non-American general interest media, such as the BBC, The Guardian, and Sydney Morning Herald. All this in addition to high-profile sports-centric non-soccer-focused news sources, such as ESPN, Sports Illustrated, Sporting News, Yahoo Sports. CUA 27 (talk) 17:58, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @CUA 27: Most of "the coverage" is just trivia and cherry-picking. (see WP:TRIVIA and WP:CHERRY) Only one of these sources talk exclusively about Americans coaches abroad (the tiny Soccer America one which is less than a paragraph). I could also cherry-pick parts from BBC articles about English managers abroad, but that is still not enough to justify an article about them. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 21:13, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - TRIVIA deals with trivia sections within articles & CHERRY deals with addressing bias with an article — I don’t see how either applies to this article or this discussion.CUA 27 (talk) 20:39, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per CUA 27, passes WP:GNG as noted above clearly has WP:RS coverage.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:25, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lists don't just need RS to cite the individual items, they also need a valid reason as to why they should exist as a standalone list. Usually that means the list has been discussed as a whole by sources. I don't see that. This would be far better as just a category. This is pretty clear AmericaCruft. I don't see a list of Foreign coaches of American soccer teams, and fail to see how some Americans being in charge of a football team is somehow especially noteworthy. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 22:47, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I !voted weak keep on the first AfD, but after re-considering, the only SIGCOV of this concept is the short article from Soccer America. All of the other SIGCOV pertains to individuals, rather than the collective of American coaches managing other national teams. Jogurney (talk) 13:43, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 21:57, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I have read the comments above carefully, and find myself most in agreement with those who believe that there should be a valid reason why such a standalone list should exist. I can't see, and no-one advocating for this article's retention has made, a clear case why this particular list is any more notable than (for example) "English coaches of foreign national soccer teams" or "American coaches of foreign national hockey teams", neither of which I could find as separate list articles. In certain cases, list articles can be very useful: a list of all alumni of a particular denominational school (to take a recent AfD case) can provide a useful way of quickly scanning for commonalities and differences between the people on the list. But I can't see how this list allows for that, since there are no articles in Wikipedia, nor any categories, identifying and discussing different coaching styles and how these might vary by nationality. There's no distinctiveness to American soccer coaching styles (or at least, none is adduced), so we simply have a disjointed list. Accordingly, I can't see a clear encyclopedic value for this list in current circumstances. RomanSpa (talk) 22:17, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there is a complete lack of coverage/analysis on these people together as an actual group, which is the requirement for lists such as these. Discussion of individual managers of national teams who also happen to be American does not add up to this being a notable topic Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:43, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. AmericaCruft is just what this is. Also I dislike using "foreign" to mean "not American". If you're not American (as I am not) and if you live outside the USA (as I do) then "foreign" has other meanings and you don't see yourself as a foreigner. Athel cb (talk) 09:03, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:BIAS-cruft which has nothing to support that this is a notable group, thus also failing WP:LISTN, and reads rather like a clumsy juxtaposition of unrelated or only very trivially related factoids. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:19, 30 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:55, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tamaoho School

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

Non-notable primary school, the only sources available from a search are primary sources. Devonian Wombat (talk) 21:55, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:03, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:03, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:03, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom. Nothing to suggest any notability. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 23:33, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable primary school. Fails GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:36, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:22, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Steffen Bakker

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

Notability tagged for 5 years, article has stood for 11 years without a valid source. For a WP:BLP, this is unacceptable. I have checked Soccerway, Tribuna, FlashScore and BeSoccer and not found any senior appearances that would meet the requirements of WP:NFOOTBALL nor any evidence that he is likely to meet NFOOTBALL any time in the near future. In addition, a search of Dutch sources yields some coverage but it's mostly trivial stuff and from non-independent sources such as Groningen's own website.

The best independent source looks to be Tweenul, which does not contain enough detail for a WP:GNG pass. Also, GNG would require multiple sources showing detailed coverage. If the required sources are found, please ping me. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:25, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:25, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:25, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:25, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:28, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, nothing there. Pointless substub created by someone named Bakker. Geschichte (talk) 22:49, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not a case for speedy. This is a warrented and well-researched nomination. gidonb (talk) 19:53, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 10:19, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NFOOTBALL. The best article I could find is actually titled Steffen Bakker.[10] Probably we can piece the WP:GNG together, yet I tend against that when there is no claim to fame like playing even minutes in a professional game, or a major distinction or abundance of coverage for "amateurs" (at these levels, they all get paid). Being a bencher at the EC U-21 is the closest to a major distinction yet not enough. gidonb (talk) 13:48, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. While the article is here, enjoy Bakker's goal in the external links! gidonb (talk) 12:57, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It sure was a great goal! Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:30, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It reminded me of Asmir Begovic and Tim Howard. Paul Vaurie (talk) 17:11, 30 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. Without checking the veracity of offline sources provided by User:TheAafi, withdrawing this nomination assuming in good faith, that TheAafi have checked the sources they have cited. (non-admin closure) - hako9 (talk) 04:53, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Akhtar Sheerani

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

All refs are either WP:UGC, WP:YT, or unreliable. Couldn't find any WP:SIGCOV beyond passing mentions. The dawn article has a passing mention. Found a scroll article with his mention. Another unreliable source [11] with little coverage. There could be reliable local print sources since the person died in 48, but they need to be produced. Since the article has been up since 2007, I am assuming there aren't any reliable sources with significant coverage. - hako9 (talk) 20:09, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. - hako9 (talk) 20:09, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. - hako9 (talk) 20:09, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. - hako9 (talk) 20:09, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Very notable romantic poet (1905 - 1948) in the Indian subcontinent. Dawn newspaper reference gives a short profile which is not a 'passing mention'. Pakistan Post issued a commemorative postage stamp in his honor in 2005, so there is hardly a question about his notability. Yes, the person died in 1948. I did the best I could with available sources. I'll go ahead and include 2 above-mentioned references found by the nominator soon in the article and move the YouTube sources to external links. Ngrewal1 (talk) 20:47, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Dawn ref is not sigcov. As for the commemorative postage stamp, this claim needs reliable sources. Laughable that a stamp claimed to have been issued by Pak postal services in 2005, is referenced to paknetmag.blogspot.com. While you are at it, please also delete the whole "Works" and "Style and influence on Urdu poetry" sections, lest I do it myself. Each and every line in those sections is unverified. - hako9 (talk) 21:21, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do whatever your little heart desires. Your article improvement efforts will be welcome. Go for it. Ngrewal1 (talk) 21:43, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WorldCat has entries of two works that significantly discuss Sheerani and his works viz. Ak̲h̲tar Shīrānī aur jadīd Urdū adab (Akhtar Sheerani and Modern Urdu Literature) authored by Yunus Hasani and Akhtar Śīrāni, fan aur śak̲h̲siyat (Akhtar Shirani: Life and Art), authored by Hanumāna Siṃhala. This is what makes it pass the WP:GNG. The article might be in bad condition and would need to be improved but its subject is notable enough. ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 17:32, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There's a third book, Ak̲h̲tar Shīrānī kī jinsī aur rūmānī shāʻirī (Akhtar Shirani and Romantic Poetry), authored by Qamar Jahān̲ and published from Bhagalpur. This is more than enough. ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 17:39, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not just two or three, there are five books that discuss Shirani, as the records of five books I could find on WorldCat. I guess this AfD should be speedily closed as keep. Hako9 Do you still have any doubts on the notability of Shirani? ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 17:53, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the details of all of the five books in the article in the Bibliography section. ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 17:54, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment . As I said above earlier, I have moved the 2 YouTube links to the article's External links and have added 2 more book references. This article is in fairly good shape now. Ngrewal1 (talk) 20:27, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:30, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ireka Chigozie Bethel

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

WP:BLP on a footballer with practically no evidence towards WP:NFOOTBALL or WP:GNG. Even if someone can provide evidence for the former, he would still need to ultimately pass the latter to have a stand-alone article as per the FAQ at the top of NFOOTBALL. Searching the footballer's name shows only Wikipedia mirrors so this looks like a comprehensive failure of GNG. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:44, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:45, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:45, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:45, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:48, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 21:07, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:32, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails NFOOTBALL and GNG. Jogurney (talk) 19:14, 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 21:13, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gerry Clarke

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

Badly sourced BLP on a footballer that has never played in a league listed at WP:FPL and with no evidence to support a WP:GNG claim. Notability tagged since 2018. Created by a now indef blocked account with multiple promotional edits by IPs along the way. I've attempted the following searches: Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:25, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:25, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:25, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:25, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Searches attempted - searches in conjunction with "Morwell Falcons" have yielded almost nothing. He did play for them as there is some database data such as Ozfootball but it doesn't support notability due to the low level of football played. I did also find a passing mention in Bayside News, where he is mentioned as the father of a footballer. An Irish Times search focused on the time in which he was in Ireland comes back with these results. Most of these appear to be routine match reporting and routine match build-up articles, no indication of actual significant coverage from the previews. If someone with full access can contradict my assertion on this, then please ping me. No results found in many Irish News Archive searches. Nothing found in a search of British Newspaper Archive, which includes many prominent newspapers from Ireland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:30, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:31, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 21:07, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and a clear WP:BEFORE has been done. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:31, 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 21:14, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

James H. Beal (philatelist)

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

The only source on Beal is a philately linked publication listsing those recognized by the American Philately Hall of Fame. We lack any truly indepdent sourcing about him, or any sourcing that shows that his award is truly a significant honor. I do not think he as such meets our basic definitions for biographical notability. John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:21, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:48, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:48, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Appears to be about a guy that was active in the American Philatelic Society and did significant things for them. There is no evidence that Beal meets the WP:GNG and I agree with nominator that there is nothing to support the award being significant, failing WP:ANYBIO. —Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 20:22, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I have actually come across several of these articles as I have been going through 1922, 1923 and 1924 birth articles. Due to the restriction of one deletion nomination a day, I usually move on from them and I have not made note of who exatly the articles were on, but just in those 3 years there are probably roughly 10 articles on people with about this level of coverage who were notable in philetaly.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:53, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Beal served as chairman of the American Philatelic Society's committee on theft and, based on news accounts, appears to have been a leading expert on stamp theft and counterfeiting. See, e.g., here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. That said, I'm not finding the depth of WP:SIGCOV (with a focus on Beal) that I would expect to see in order to warrant a stand-alone article under WP:GNG. Cbl62 (talk) 00:41, 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. There is a consensus that the subject is notable enough and deletion should only happen per WP:BIODEL which doesn't seem to apply here. Speedy close because we have the snowball clause. (non-admin closure) ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 17:49, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Andreessen

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

Trying to fix a malformed nomination. The nominator is Marc-andres1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), who may be the same person as the subject of this article, Marc Andreessen. The nominator's reason is: "The individual talked about in this page no longer desires his information to be displayed on wikipedia". I think that notability is clear and the article should be kept. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:06, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

|cat=B|text=The individual talked about in this page no longer desires his information to be displayed on wikipedia}} Marc-andres1 (talk) 18:10, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:07, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:12, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious keep Can't be sure the account is the actual subject, and there's no way this BLP of one of the World Wide Web's 'founders' is getting removed. Nate • (chatter) 20:40, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Even if it is the actual subject who wants the article taken down, they are very far from being marginally notable. If there are specific aspects of the article they are unhappy with, the article talkpage is the appropriate venue. Edwardx (talk) 20:46, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - not a marginal case, passes WP:BASIC by a long, long way Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:55, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Many references in reliable sources, notability very clear. Tacyarg (talk) 16:08, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep obviously. Subject is notable. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:09, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Deletion of BLP policy should apply here. Policy is clear around "relatively unknown, non-public figures". Marc is not that. However, if there is data Marc wants fixed on his BLP, we should help him fix it. BLP policy is also clear on that. Walrusmcd (talk) 00:53, 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 13:20, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Jardine

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

Non notable character, fictional character pages get deleted and merged all the time, so it makes no sense that this page is still here Sahaib3005 (talk) 10:10, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:12, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to Taggart#Cast (the article doesn't even have a section for 'characters'). The nom's argument is not the most articulate one I've seen but they are right this character doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG. PS. I'd also encourage the nom to consider WP:PROD first for such cases. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:57, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:57, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:57, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Topic fails WP:GNG. There are no sources discussing the character. TTN (talk) 00:02, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As the second and later main character of a long running popular TV series, I would have thought there might be scope for an article. However he does not seem to have attracted the kind of coverage that would justify one. Anything there is could likely be covered at Taggart if a section for characters was added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dunarc (talk • contribs) 22:59, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, there doesn't seem to be any significant coverage of the subject in secondary sources. Avilich (talk) 16:35, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This discussion was never transcluded to a daily log. Fixed now--I have no opinion of my own on the discussion itself. --Finngall ^talk 19:09, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:32, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adolf Miesz

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

Article created by a block-evading sock, however, has had good faith edits by editors in good standing so not eligible for a speedy deletion. That being said, referees are not covered by WP:NFOOTBALL and there is nothing here to support a case for meeting WP:GNG, as only database entries are cited. A search of Austrian sources only yields more databases like World Referee and Austria Soccer, which do not indicate notability. Nothing better found when altering the preference to German sources. Has an article in Hungarian Wikipedia too but that is also only sourced to indiscriminate databases. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:02, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:07, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 21:02, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nominators WP:BEFORE and my own failed search. BilledMammal (talk) 01:24, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly fails GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:46, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. When I first found this page some things made no sense whatsoever. I know that's not a reason for deletion, however if there aren't any sources that establish its notability then I say it should be deleted. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) (Stupidity by me) 19:15, 28 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. In addition to being fewer in number, the keep arguments often cited things that do not establish notability, such as presence on databases and non-RS sources. RL0919 (talk) 23:38, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rapper Shaz

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

Fails WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG, lacks reliable coverage TheChronium 15:26, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. TheChronium 15:26, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:44, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Authentic presence (Authority Control) (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), (6) Article contains reliable sources from National Publishers (India) source 1 source 2. --Fchlieck (talk) 17:21, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see any significant reliable sources (as needed per WP:GNG). The only one that isn't behind a paywall only trivially mentions his name [12]. The others don't provide significant coverage, similarly [13][14]. ([15] doesn't even mention him). The keep arguments (WP:ITEXISTS, sourced to Facebook and some publisher's website) are entirely unconvincing, and I can't find anything else. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:38, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Subject has signed deal with Sony Music ATV and Beatstars Publishing 1 2 (Refer the badges on the profile) I've improved the article, instead of deleting it should be moved to "Stub" to let people add more content with reliable sources. Grimeindia (talk) 05:05, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FYI Sony Music/ATV is the world's largest music publishing service. There is a world of difference between the company representing today top artists like Kanye West or licensing the Motown, Beatles and other iconic artist's catalogs versus emerging artists like this rapper "signing a deal" with the company as a client service. It is available to anyone who wants to sell their music. To sign an agreement to pay them a percentage of one's earnings in exchange for there services is not a significant achievement in itself.ShelbyMarion (talk) 15:09, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. The above links are either passing mentions or non-independent sources that do not contribute to notability. -- Ab207 (talk) 04:30, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No significant coverage. Pillechan (പിള്ളേച്ചനോട് പറ) 07:20, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I marked it for speedy that was removed by an ip address. fails GNG. DMySon (talk) 04:04, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I see four reliable sources, three of which are ongoing coverage by The Hindu. Bearian (talk) 16:29, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:BASIC as per <1> | <2> | <3> Also, the article should be kept per WP:IGNORE (artist has credits on major databases) --💤ER✌A ^(TALK💬) 17:21, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 18:58, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per DMySon and Ab207.--Melaleuca alternifolia | talk 19:05, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails NMUSIC. Probably TOOSOON.-KH-1 (talk) 01:38, 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 keep. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 12:28, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My-King Johnson

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

The only SIGCOV I've found of Johnson are articles saying he'd be the first gay D-I player—Except he wasn't. Johnson was dismissed before playing a game at Arizona. Afterwards he went to New Mexico Military Institute. It appears he does not play anymore. Fails 1: WP:GNG as only one piece with SIGCOV; 2: WP:NCOLLATH as he did not play and won no major awards; & 3: WP:NGRIDIRON as he never played pro. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:00, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:00, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:00, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete says the article's creator. I jumped the gun on this. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:19, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Muboshgu: Given the extent of coverage noted below, I don't think you jumped the gun. Cbl62 (talk) 21:08, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:51, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NGRIDIRON Suonii180 (talk) 20:32, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Fails WP:NGRIDIRON, as his career never materialized, but passes WP:GNG due to significant coverage in reliable sources:
1. "My-King Johnson to be first active openly gay scholarship player in major-college football". ESPN. AP. February 25, 2017.
2. The Blavity Team (March 1, 2017). "My-King Johnson is First Openly Gay Man to Get Major Football Scholarship". Teen Vogue.
3. Rosendall, Richard (May 10, 2017). "Gay High School Player Wins Courage Award". GLAA.
4. Rosenblatt, Zack (August 12, 2017). "Arizona Wildcats football: On My-King Johnson and Jalen Harris, Ricky Hunley, kickers, recruiting". Arizona Daily Star.
5. Lev, Michael (May 3, 2019). "My-King Johnson, Devaughn Cooper dismissed from Arizona football team". Arizona Daily Star.
His name is in the headlines and he's covered in depth in these articles. Additional reporting can be found in The Guardian, the Washington Post, and on Telesur: his scholarship was national and international news. pburka (talk) 22:32, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@pburka My opinion: 1. is WP:SIGCOV; no. 2. is pretty much the same topic; no. 3 I'm not sure about, it is different but appears short.; no. 4 is under the "blog" section; and no. 5 appears to me as routine coverage. My opinion of GNG for sports bios is 3 independent sources, different topics (I would count the 50 articles about him coming out as 1) with SIGCOV. All the SIGCOV I see is the same topic, him coming out as gay. No 3. you listed may be SIGCOV, but to me it seems too short. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:38, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I understand the nom's concern about lack of on-field accomplishments, but he was the first openly gay scholarship player at the Division I FBS level. More importantly, the media coverage is sufficiently overwhelming (and here for good reason) that the subject clearly passes WP:GNG. Here are examples of the WP:SIGCOV: (1) this (international feature coverage in a major English newspaper), (2) this (more international coverage in the UK), (3) this (national feature coverage in ESPN.com); (4) this (national feature coverage in The Washington Post); (5) this (national feature coverage in The Nation), (6) this (national coverage in SI.com), (7) this (national feature coverage in Teen Vogue), (8) part one/part two (in depth feature coverage in Arizona's leading newspaper), (9) part one/part two, (10) this (national coverage at Fox Sports), (11) this (national coverage from NBC News), (12) this (national coverage in The Advocate), and (13) this (national coverage from CBS Sports). If those aren't enough, see also (14) this, (15) this, (16) this, (17) this, (18) this,(19) this, (20) this, (21) this, (22) this, and (23) this. Cbl62 (talk) 13:15, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to evaluate sources
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 18:57, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It appears that they meet WP:GNG, but I think they should also be considered in the context of WP:BLP1E. BilledMammal (talk) 06:52, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I thought about that, too, but the coverage is not limited to one event. While his Feb 2017 commitment to UA as the first openly-gay scholarship player is understandably a focus of much (but not all) of the coverage, the coverage extends to his high school career, his initial commitment to UCLA, his later commitment to Arizona, his redshirt freshman season at UA, and his removal from the team for rules violations. I also don't think he falls within prongs 2 and 3 of BLP1E. Cbl62 (talk) 15:32, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In any event, if the coverage is because of him being gay, that's not a "one-time event." It's an immutable characteristic, so it would literally be his whole life. Smartyllama (talk) 23:41, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Fails NGRIDIRON but clearly passes GNG. Smartyllama (talk) 18:21, 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. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:01, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anncharlott Eschmann

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:PROF or WP:GNG. Has been in CAT:NN for 12 years; hopefully we can now resolve this. Boleyn (talk) 21:01, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:10, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:10, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:10, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "head of the New Delhi branch of Heidelberg's South Asia Institute" sounds promising? Furius (talk) 09:27, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The "head" of a universitiy's outreach/external study program in another place is not at all close to meeting any actual criteria of professor notability, and nothing about her or her work meets any academic notability. The sources clearly and completely fail GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:29, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's just not what the South Asia Institute is [16] - it's a degree-granting academic institution under Heidelberg's umbrella, with multiple faculties and its own academic chairs, so closer to something like the American School of Classical Studies in Athens. She also appears in Stache-Rosen, German Indologists. Biographies of scholars in Indian studies writing in German; with a summary on Indology in German speaking countries. 1981, 2nd ed. rev. by A. Stache-Weiske. (1990) pp. 131ff. and there is probably more information in (but I don't have access to) Tripathi, Gaya Charan & Kulke, Hermann, Religion and society in eastern India : Eschmann memorial lectures (1994), which honoured her posthumously. These factors incline me to keep. Furius (talk) 01:22, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Furius. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:54, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. She is the main editor of the well-cited collection The Cult of Jagannath (review: [17]) and her book Das Religiöse Geschichtsbilt Der Azteken has two reviews ([18], [19]). By itself that would only be enough to give her a very weak case for WP:AUTHOR, but I think it adds to the case for notability already made on different grounds by Furius. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:03, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Weak keep-- as per David Eppstein, yet article needs references.--Melaleuca alternifolia | talk 19:08, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, meets WP:AUTHOR, albeit barely.Jackattack1597 (talk) 23:26, 30 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. There's convincing arguments that this topic is distinct from the preceding season of Dr. Who. I would have liked to see more evidence of substantive content, but in the absence of arguments as to why a separate stub is worse than an out-of-place section, I can't close this any other way. Vanamonde (Talk) 13:05, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Who (2022 specials)

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

Unnecessary spin-off from Doctor Who (series 13). Two of the three specials under this article's purview are part of series 13's production period, so belong naturally in its article per precedent of Doctor Who (series 11) and Doctor Who (series 12), with current sources indicating only a short break before the third is filmed too. Resulting article says nothing distinct from Doctor Who (series 13) - if there comes a point where distinct sources for the three specials become abundant, a separate article could be revisited, but there's no knowing if that point will come at this premature moment. A separate specials article existing now runs the risk of Wikipedia leading rather than following external sources. U-Mos (talk) 22:42, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:50, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:50, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The correct precedent here is Doctor_Who_(2008–2010_specials); these also came at the end of a particular Doctor's incarnation, and formed a brief set of episodes bridging from one incarnation to the next, with the last of these episodes finishing with a regeneration scene. The BBC has indicated that this is what's going to happen in this case too. This is a clear Keep. RomanSpa (talk) 23:02, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Narrative similarities notwithstanding, those specials were always discussed, promoted and considered as existing in lieu of a full series in 2009 (and with one exception, were produced separately from the preceding series) - on this occasion we have two of three specials that were literally announced as part of series 13. So I dispute the equivalence is that exact. U-Mos (talk) 23:41, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Found this source as well which says "Doctor Who Series 13 and 2022 specials" which further separates the series itself from the specials. TheDoctorWho (talk) 19:40, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong and clear keep Why was this not simply discussed on the talk page first? An unfortunate sign of a lack of collaborative effort. As mentioned, Doctor Who (2008–2010 specials) and Doctor Who (2013 specials) act as precedence for this article, the specials in the former article even using production codes directly from its preceeding series. This article details the three specials that are served outside of Series 13. The episodes are not at all a part of Series 13. These external sources you mention all reliably confirm three specials outside of the series, which is described as a "six-episode serial"; these specials do not make up those six episodes. -- /Alex/₂₁ 23:57, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This Radio Times source states "Both star and showrunner will bow out following a six-part series (set to air later in 2021), two specials (already planned for 2022), plus one final feature-length adventure for the Thirteenth Doctor which will also mark the BBC’s centenary next year." which clearly separates the series from the specials confirming what Alex said above. This differs from say the twelfth series special where Chibnall says " You will get a special – at the end of the series, yes" ([20]) which attaches it to the preceding series itself. It probably wouldn't hurt to slightly trim the thirteenth series of information around the specials themselves just to get the distinction that the nominator mentioned. TheDoctorWho (talk) 01:14, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Doctor Who (series 13) - the specials can be briefly mentioned in a section there, but there isn't enough information out there to justify a separate article at present.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:39, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I respectfully disagree, there are reliable sources ([21], [22], [23], [24] are all centered around the "trio of specials") that address the specials themselves (casting information, crew information, filming information, broadcast information) and all of that is in the article which beyond meets the minimum requirements of WP:NTV. TheDoctorWho (talk) 19:38, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Those are all either press releases or regurgitations of press releases; that's not significant independent coverage. Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:55, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Wikipedia says that independent sources "have editorial independence (advertisers do not dictate content) and no conflicts of interest (there is no potential for personal, financial, or political gain to be made from the existence of the publication) which the first two clearly meet. If two aren't enough for you here's a third and most of the sources in that article are independent according to that definition. The second two are press releases, or primary sources, which I don't see being an issue since independent sources are used along side them. TheDoctorWho (talk) 02:31, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I also disagree with the above; the article completely meets the requirements of NTV, in which the subject of the article has already begun filming. -- /Alex/₂₁ 20:42, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I can so both sides of this debate, but I think there might also be a further issue to consider. The final special (which is to tie in with BBC centenary), does not at this stage seem to have been part of the same production block as the other two, which were made with series 13. Without knowing the content it might be the case that the first two specials are much more closely connected with season 13 (and better placed in its article) and the third is more of a stand alone effort which would not fit into the series 13 article. Also at this stage we do not know what is happening in 2023 and beyond. It is possible that there could be more specials (eg for the 60th anniversary) before any further series is broadcast. Thus it might be that there is eventually a need for an article covering multiple specials after series 13. Thus I think if this is deleted then there needs to be the option to restore in the future. For what its worth, my own feeling would be leave for now (as there is clearly some coverage of 2022 specials at the moment) and then revisit in the future if it becomes clear that season 13 is the best place for all three specials. Dunarc (talk) 19:46, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Seems too early to spin this out so all the material on forthcoming productions are better in a single location where reader can find everything together. This can clearly be undone later if there is sufficient material to spin out a further article. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:06, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to note as the nominator I'd be happy with a redirect to Doctor Who (series 13) as an alternative. U-Mos (talk) 21:57, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Despite the content not relating to Series 13, as proven above? -- /Alex/₂₁ 22:29, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - I've made my position clear, as have you; let's respect the AfD process. U-Mos (talk) 23:18, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - Can I ask why you didn't start this as a discussion on the article's talk page first? -- /Alex/₂₁ 23:29, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        There's no requirement to do so - a formal nomination gives a better chance for thorough discussion and a conclusive result. U-Mos (talk) 23:39, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        Very disappointing. Thank you for your response. -- /Alex/₂₁ 23:41, 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) 18:53, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Definitely noteworthy and relevant according to Wikipedia's noteability guidelines. --Chris VDR (talk) 12:35, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as there is a precedent for this type of split.Jackattack1597 (talk) 23:27, 30 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:35, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Windsor Farms, Pennsylvania

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

Could not find any evidence of a community here, does not appear on topos. GNIS cites a 1982 county highway map. Newspaper results returned false positives for a housing development outside of Wilkes-Barre and a farm in England owned by the Queen; the very few articles that could have been hits described nothing more than a farm. –dlthewave ☎ 18:40, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 18:40, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 18:40, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: USGS maps show virtually nothing but a single road in 1892, 1899, 1924, 1943, 1947, 1956 and 1963. By 1969 a housing development started to appear, and by 1993 it looked about the way it does today. On Google's satellite maps, you can see that there is indeed a subdivision there, and not much else. An elementary school and police station to the north seem to be in Harrisburg (17110). If someone can come up with archive sources referring to this as a community, my !vote will be "keep"; otherwise, it will be "delete". jp×g 22:30, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I found an article about it, but the language is puffery and the author's byline includes the title "Advertising Projects Writer", so it's clearly unusable for notability as just being early native advertising (it's also about a place near Shavertown, Pennsylvania, in the wrong part of the state. In fact, almost all of what I can find is for the housing development outside of Shavertown. There's also some references to a British Royal family farm, and a reference to Windsor Farms in Richmond, VA. All I can really tell for sure about this Dauphin County place is that it's a neighborhood in Harrisburg, and that's only through passing mentions in sourcing dating as far back as 1959. So I guess delete this article, as this Dauphin County location is a neighborhood of Harrisburg with little-to-no significant coverage. Hog Farm _Talk 04:16, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The earliest mention of Windsor Farms in Dauphin County I can find are 1965 advertisements for lots, starting at just $100 [25] (this would be quite a steal today, admittedly). There are some mentions in the 1990s of the Windsor Farms Homeowners' Association, but not enough to write an article. Nothing noteworthy that I can find. Firsfron of Ronchester 04:48, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Firsfron's analysis of the archives and my own failure to find anything on the USGS topos. jp×g 10:53, 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:19, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notre Dame Church (Easton, Connecticut)

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

Previously at AfD as part of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. Mark Church (Stratford, Connecticut), where it does not appear to have ever been discussed as it was a mega nom, and has been PRODded several times during its ten-year stint in the notability backlog so I believe it's time for discussion. The church exists, but the building does not appear to be artchitecturally significant and BEFORE identifies only run of the mill coverage such as mass schedules and other church events. Nothing to establish notability as per WP:ORG. While a school by this name is mentioned in the Diocese article, the church isn't so a redirect would not be helpful to the reader. Star Mississippi 18:16, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 18:16, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 18:16, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 18:16, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 18:16, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I don't see anything resembling significant coverage, merely run-of-the-mill mentions. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:30, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet notability requirements and lacks any supporting references. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:04, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Diocese of Bridgeport alone has over 80 parishes. There is nothing that makes this one more notable than any other.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:05, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The nomination mentioned in the lead happened 10 years ago.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:12, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless amended to show notability. Just a run of the mill local church, as far as I can see. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:29, 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 delete. ✗plicit 23:46, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While We're Up

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

Non-notable band that does not seem to have done anything significant to pass WP:NBAND. Question mark over notability for over 10 years. Disbanded after 2 years. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:48, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:48, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:48, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:51, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only coverage I could find relates to the death of one of its members. While tragic, Wikipedia is WP:NOTMEMORIAL and this band clearly fails WP:NBAND and GNG. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 19:03, 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 13:18, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MC One

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

Appears promotional. Attempted to move to draft to avoid AfD but it was immediately moved back. Minor coverage in included sources with the exception of Afrique Sur7, which has slightly more, but the lack of inclusion of this critical coverage lends to concerns of promotion. Does not appear to pass WP:GNG or WP:NMUSICIAN - other sources may be available in French, I was unable to find any going through WP:BEFORE but the ambiguous name may be part of the reason. (His full name is also confused in search with Roch Marc Christian Kaboré) ASUKITE 15:51, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ASUKITE 15:51, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. ASUKITE 15:51, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no reliable sources subject doesn’t meet WP: NMUSIC, qualifies for WP:A7. -Xclusivzik (talk) 17:04, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSICIAN Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:26, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Signed to Sony Music France
Delete per nom Idunnox3 (talk) 22:32, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.sonymusic.fr/artistes/mc-one/— Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.59.122.130 (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 speedy delete per G12 by Materialscientist. (non-admin closure) --MuZemike 11:52, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Opanka

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

I cannot find anything that shows the artist meets WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Claim of winning Ghana Music Award is unsubstantiated. Google search brings up press releases and other promotional type of articles. Article had previously been speedied under this name and Dadie Opanka. ... discospinster _talk 15:51, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 15:51, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 15:51, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as a copyright violation of [26]. I have tagged the article for G12. DanCherek (talk) 04:00, 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 keep. RL0919 (talk) 23:05, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shyamal Bagchee

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

Academic who meets neither WP:GNG or WP:NACADEMIC. Appears a bit promotional as well. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:45, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:45, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:47, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agreed that the article is quite promotional and might have been written by the subject of the page himself: "Although Bagchee came to Canada as an immigrant from India, he has mostly refrained from the self-created ghettos where Indians remain cocooned, sentimentally trying to keep their fantastic notion of a ‘home’ half a world away. He has not felt or regarded himself to be an alien, or in exile in Canada, and found that kind of immigrants’ anguish-ridden art insincere and having a hidden agenda of emotionally blackmailing the new country to which the same authors moved without being under duress."

I find these sentences to be quite odd, especially since they are unsourced. It sure sounds like he wrote his own page to me. The page was also written by a single purpose account that has done nothing but this one article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:04, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am saying that Bagchee disagrees with those who do not embrace their new homes. I see the problem with it and can fix it.Frankie1964 (talk) 00:11, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Claims need to be cited with references, and the article as it stands does not maintain the encyclopedic format of Wikipedia, as it has excessive details that are not relevant. My concern is that you are either Bagchee or someone who knows him well, which is a conflict of interest that must be disclosed. Please review WP:COI. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:15, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:34, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. and rewrit, possibly in draft space. He probably has enough publications to meet WP:PROF, but there is too much personal material to really judge. DGG ( talk ) 09:44, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
delete fails both WP:NAUTHOR and WP:NPROF. his GS profile and JSTOR turned up very few publications and just one or two reviews of his books, @DGG: what is the basis of your assessment of "probably has enough publications" ? --hroest 17:51, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. GS citation record inadequate. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:07, 18 August 2021 (UTC).[reply]
Delete as lacking independent sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:10, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Google Scholar citation is not an accurate reflection; a Google books search shows multiple citations in academic texts for his work on T S Eliot. He has entries in Ryerson University's online biographical dictionary of Canadian-Asian Authors^[1] and in South Asian writers in Canada: a bio-bibliographical study.^[2] "The Yeats-Eliot Review: A Journal of Criticism and Scholarship ... is unique because it is indepently owned and published...Founded by modern literature scholar Professor Shyamal Bagchee."^[3]

References

^ "Shyamal Bagchee – Asian Heritage in Canada". Ryerson University.
^ Chilana, Rajwant Singh (2017). South Asian writers in Canada : a bio-bibliographical study. Surrey, BC, Canada. p. 288. ISBN 9780987959010.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
^ Matthews, Greg J. (4 December 2008). Literary Research and Irish Literature: Strategies and Sources. Scarecrow Press. p. 99. ISBN 978-0-8108-6367-5.

Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 03:42, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Have you physically seen sources 2&3? They don)t seem to be online and based on the first one, an uncited and very short library catalog listing that clearly isn’t an RS, I’d like to see more details of the claimed sources before accepting them. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:00, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article definitely needs a rewrite. However there's some mainstream coverage of him other the decades. I've improved one reference, and added 3 more. Nfitz (talk) 19:17, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- would you mind linking the sources you added here to allow everyone to easily assess them? Thanks Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:04, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Here's a diff of the changes before and after I edited it. Nfitz (talk) 23:12, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Sources added later in the process seem to support WP:GNG notability; relisting to give the delete commenters time to react.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 15:38, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Seems to be enough coverage of this person, as per others. Yet it clearly needs some copyediting and use of less self-promotional words.--Melaleuca alternifolia | talk 19:12, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rewrite. Seems the subject have enough coverage. Bapinghosh (talk) 20:12, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:05, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorbus fosteri

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

There is no evidence that the scientific name "Sorbus fosteri" was ever published. There is a single old advert archived in 2011 that says a plant by this name is for sale and that it was recently named, but the name does not appear in a Google Scholar search, the International Plant Names Index or any other taxonomic database I have looked at. The article has been disputed since 2011. It should now be deleted as it has become the only 'live' source of information on this supposed species and so is spreading mis-information. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:26, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, it should be deleted, for the reasons Peter’s stated. If this is a vote, I vote Delete Hamamelis (talk) 14:22, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:15, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:50, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Seems like an invalid taxon to me. Google search results are full of wikipedia mirror sites mentioning this species. Reliable sources do not mention it.--Melaleuca alternifolia | talk 19:16, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, presumably one of many plant cultivars given what looks like a scientific name back in the day when this was common. But it has no currency. Abductive (reasoning) 05:40, 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 delete. ✗plicit 12:25, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan Tai

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

WP:BLP of an actor and news anchor, not properly referenced as passing our inclusion criteria for either actors or journalists. As always, people are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they have jobs -- the notability test hinges on evidence of distinction, such as notable awards and/or the reception of third party reliable source coverage analyzing the significance of their work. But the notability claim here, for both acting and journalism, is simply that he and his work exist, and the only footnote is the self-published personal website of the director of a film he was in, which is not notability-supporting media coverage. Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have considerably better referencing than this. (Also, the article was recreated just three months after the first AFD discussion, by an editor who stated in their own edit summary that they were personally "helping" him to get a Wikipedia article — which means that it also violated our conflict of interest rules, and really should have been speedy deleted four years ago as a recreation of deleted content.) Bearcat (talk) 03:25, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 03:25, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 03:25, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 03:25, 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) 05:28, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ambrosiawater (talk) 05:11, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Third relist to solicit some form of participation here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:43, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-- as per nominator. Poor media coverage, fails to meet criteria. COI and recreation are also a bit suspicious.--Melaleuca alternifolia | talk 19:20, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above comment. Waddles 🗩 🖉 05:41, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
[27]--愛子棋枰 (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 keep. Sandstein 08:07, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Towdie

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

None of the citations establish the notability of the game - they are all fan-made sites that simply confirm that it exists. The page was created for self-promotional reasons by the author of the game Special:Contributions/NeonPuffin aka Louis Wittek who also founded the company t that published it so WP:NOTYOU clearly applies.MrMajors (talk) 12:42, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:05, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - what looks like a commercial release for the Spectrum is probably notable. I found [28] and [29] for example, whilst the SK:Towdie gives some links to some prints of magazine reviews, so there's likely a lot of that too. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:21, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are over 10,000 commercial Spectrum games. Simply existing is not a reason for a Wikipedia page. Further, if the author of the page, who is also the publisher of the original game, later wants to launch a kickstarter to sell another version of the game then that's further evidence of self-promotion and WP:NOTYOU rather than notability. MrMajors (talk) 13:32, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the linked "magazine reviews" at SK:Towdie are from the magazine BiT, which was also published by Ultrasoft, so not an independent source either. MrMajors (talk) 10:42, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think that coverage of the game scrapes by WP:GNG due to modern coverage of the game and what I found in a quick Archive.org search - I found a review in ZX Magazín here and a brief mention in the Spain edition of Retro Gamer here. Waxworker (talk) 00:01, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Provided sources need evaluation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 01:17, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Ultrasoft as alternative to deletion. Good point above about Bit being an affiliated source (see cs:Ultrasoft). Absent that main review, we don't have nearly enough significant coverage on which to base a dedicated encyclopedia article. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 04:48, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per the references sourced by others and because it seems pretty unlikely that a commercial release like this would not have significant coverage in video game sources at the time. DocFreeman24 (talk) 22:51, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (closing admin can count me as merge, but I'm not officially voting because there isn't going to be a consensus here) I thought about this for a long time. "commercial release for the Spectrum is probably notable" "unlikely that a commercial release like this would not have significant coverage in video game sources at the time" are both arguments that are exactly what we don't want to have on AfDs, WP:ITSNOTABLE and WP:MUSTBESOURCES. Now, for the modern sources above: Pocket Gamer's is a WP:ROUTINE short announcement coverage of a Kickstarter campaign, same for the Insider one (and the lack of an author makes me think it's possibly a press release rehash), and Retro Gamer is too brief to matter towards WP:GNG. Like mentioned above, Bit magazine is not independent from the developer, so it can't be counted towards notability either. That leaves ZX Magazín as the only source, and that doesn't an article make, especially with a developer's article around where it could easily live on being merged per WP:ATD. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 08:13, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per nom. Not enough references. GamedevExpert^{(Talk to GamedevExpert)} 5:06, 23 August 2021 (UTC) A sockpuppet, apparently. Haleth (talk) 01:34, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:37, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As a single detailed example from the extensive publishing history of Ultrasoft. The article has also value for future researches into history of 8-bit gaming, particularly video games for ZX Spectrum, and also as a probably sole (or at most one of very few) example(s) of professionally published ZX Spectrum games on the territory of former Czechoslovakia during the 1990s. NeonPuffin (talk) 13:10, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The creator of the page, who is also the publisher of the game clearly has a vested interest and is obviously going to vote to keep. They are also attempting to mislead others by stating this title is a "probably sole (or at most one of very few) example" while also claiming "over 40" published titles on the Ultrasoft page. MrMajors (talk) 18:01, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep in reference to the sources provided by Waxworker and Lee Vilenski. Haleth (talk) 02:00, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Lee's two links are 404s. Waxworker links two blurbs. How do we write an article with that source material? czar 02:56, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The ZX Magazin article shared above looks like WP:SIGCOV, and I think it's safe to assume this commercial release would have had additional coverage at the time. NemesisAT (talk) 20:16, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As per WP:MUSTBESOURCES, it's not "safe to assume" that at all. This release was long after the ZX Spectrum was discontinued and no longer had coverage in mainstream video magazines. MrMajors (talk) 10:45, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This comment only further proves that MrMajors (talk) has very limited knowledge of history of 8-bit home computers in Central Europe – particularly in countries of the former Eastern Bloc, yet he constantly tries to present himself as a distinct expert on the topic. Because of the Iron Curtain and its long-lasting consequences, the era of 8-bit home computers was somewhat delayed there, for example ZX Spectrum clone, Didaktik was manufactured in Czechoslovakia right until 1994, the year of publishing Towdie and 8-bit home computers and their games enjoyed there great following well into the late 90s. NeonPuffin (talk) 15:00, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Knowledge of history" doesn't matter here. There is no significant coverage from reliable third parties. MrMajors (talk) 17:03, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Official ZX Spectrum was discontinued by this time, but in soviet or eastern bloc regions clones were still very popular. (This game was produced in Slovakia.) Which also explains the lack of easily googled sources. Any sources that exist will be in Slovak or Russian. ApLundell (talk) 22:20, 30 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) 23:09, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shopaccino

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

Fails WP:NCORP. My online search only brings up passing mentions and press releases. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 14:12, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 14:12, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 14:23, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify I would like to put this back to draft as I believe reliable independent sources can be found. Amirah talk 14:49, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftification should not be used for obviously non-notable subjects—Google News only has nine results for "Shopaccino", all of which are passing mentions or press releases. You yourself moved this to mainspace, and you had ample opportunity to find sources while it was still in draftspace. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 16:34, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is an Indian company and I believe there are also foreign language sources, but I need time to find them and get translations. Amirah talk 18:22, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Technically Shopaccino is not a company, it's a product-line only (for the company called "iSolution Microsystems Private Limited"). Joojay (talk) 21:26, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you are correct. iSolution Microsystem is an Indian company. Amirah talk 10:41, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- fails to meet NCORP criteria, also very poor media coverage (almost nothing besides brief mentions).--Melaleuca alternifolia | talk 19:23, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – this one clearly fails WP:NCORP and WP:PRODUCT, as per nomination. I am confused why anyone would even write a stub article like this one? Joojay (talk) 21:22, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As I said above there are foreign language sources available, and I would like to put the article back to draft in order to develop it. Amirah talk 10:47, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@AmirahBreen: you decided to send this to an article status, and you personally remove it from draft. However you have time right now to add these new citations. Right now I am not seeing any movement or work happening and it's been a few days. Joojay (talk) 11:38, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it will take me some time to do so, that is why I have asked to get the article moved back to draft. Amirah talk 11:40, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
User:Lord Bolingbroke Please tell me how you identify that an article is a 'press release'. There are two sources quoted in the article. Do you consider them to be press releases, and if so why? Amirah talk 11:06, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Digital Journal citation literally has a media contact at the bottom of the page, this is a PR news release.. Joojay (talk) 16:13, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:PRSOURCE. The TechRadar source is not significant coverage, per WP:CORPDEPTH. The Digital Journal source is very obviously a press release, as Joojay mentioned—the byline of the article is literally "GetNews Published". – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 19:29, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. That means, nothing that relies on company information or announcements or interviews, etc. None of the references in the article meet the criteria. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:36, 30 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 to delete. There is a clear absence of consensus to delete, or even interest in deletion as a solution. Merging as an option can be proposed and further discussed outside of the AfD process. BD2412 T 00:06, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Overwriting (prose)

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

I cannot see why my PROD WP:NOTDICT is disruptive. This is a clear case of a dictionary definition, with danger of morphing into an essay. TheLongTone (talk) 13:54, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Are you meaning this article is "a clear case of a dictionary definition"? I find that hard to follow. Perhaps you mean it could or should be recast as a dictionary definition? Thincat (talk) 18:46, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I personally don't find it problematic. It does not read like a definition to me, and it is also sufficiently sourced.--Melaleuca alternifolia | talk 19:25, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: (Article creator): notified myself via Twinkle on my talk page at [30], the reason given: (to quote: ... because of the following concern:

WP:notdict. Nor is it a guide for writers.

To state the obvious I was notified with the primary reason being a link to a redlink singularity oubliette, invalid, and therefore technically entitled to be claimed as disruptive. This article is in fact developed in investigations into the overwriting battlespace, the poor stub, which I find to be encyclopaedically valid, standing as a front line foot-soldier role before having a chance to develop, though from my unverified memory the NPP frontliner seeming unquestionably curate it ... then I think I'm right in saying zoomed off to make a dab out of Overwriting. The key first battle in the space can be examined at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Overwriting (computer science) and its history, that article indeed being more in my zone than this, I am not fluency of Pim, Booth, Wilde or WB but study my technique in The Cloud of Unknowing. I note the length of time between PROD and AfD that the nom.. may be very uncertain of his nomination (though RL is a valid excuse and waiting in the hope elseone, maybe SnowFire?, would bring it here). The "danger of morphing into an essay" is not a valid deletion reason, as it is only a danger, not a certainty, and perhaps indicates the nom. cannot be confident in the nomination. I am opined, and its is actually probably the case, that many definitions can be developed in an encyclopedic manner; because their is no rule on how small the topic can be and not all topics have to be at the same time. Ultimately though Overwriting (prose) has to stand on its own merits as an article: The sources in the article seem sufficient and of sufficient quality to pass GNG and SIGCOV, but there are others, indeed I would not be normally presenting a professor of rhetoric, Arthur Guinness, Caputo, and Checkoway as the RS ... but, here we are for the moment. (There are reserves if needed, I for the moment will those for others. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:29, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No comment on the merits of the article yet, but I find it highly ironic that you created an article on overwriting given your, uh, rather florid prose style. To state the obvious I was notified with the primary reason being a link to a redlink singularity oubliette, invalid, and therefore technically entitled to be claimed as disruptive. Bruh... – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 16:58, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 16:40, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Verbosity, which includes "speech or writing". Cnilep (talk) 00:37, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Verbosity per Cnielp. There's a sourceable topic here but the two are just synonyms, so separate articles doesn't make sense. SnowFire (talk) 19:31, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Given drama elsewhere I will comment briefly. Overall my primary object was Overwriting became a DAB with a link to Wictionary; with "Overwriting" become occupied by the subject or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Overwriting (computer science) in its current state. I applaud finding of a merge target (Even if I will not !vote for it). I did some more research this morning, and found an interesting article, but dramas curtail me on this at the moment. But there are three important points to be made here. Verbosity is not a synonym for overwriting. Overwriting only replies to the written word, verbosity applies to both written and oral - they are not synomyns. Is @Cnielp or anyone actually volunteering to do a merge ... a simply redirect is insufficient, and AfD is no place to discuss merges, the results can be bad. It is often stiffling to the development of the encyclopedia to merge/redirect early, that can stiffle development. IF there is a merge there is a case for pre-tagging for a to see what happens; that hasn't happened here. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:59, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - This is a short article, I would certainly be willing to do a merge - it'll take like a minute. Per WP:NOTBURO, there's no need to do a "pre-tagging" - AFDs are closed "merge" all the time without such happening if that's the consensus result.
  - For the substance of your complaint, the writing vs. speaking distinction isn't a significant issue or a problem. Wikipedia has a single article on Defamation and not separate articles on libel and slander - they're the same thing. We can discuss the distinction within one article - "verbosity in writing is sometimes called overwriting", there, done. SnowFire (talk) 20:40, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sometimes with WP:SURPRISE and without a lot of competency. Very important to avoid the synonym here. Join the ANI if you likes as your doing the hints at the Defamation and the libel and the like. Poor and bad merges are worst than no merges. Any on top of that, your suggestion , is "done" without citing a source! ... Would this be left with a {{cn}} for someone to mop up? (though to be fair I did fine one this more). More WP:VAGUEWAVE waffle, no sourcing. I may of course have missed something. Thankyou. 20:58, 25 August 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djm-leighpark (talk • contribs) 20:59, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (I commented above). I'm no further forward towards thinking this article is a dictionary definition, nor in agreeing it should be converted to one. I don't fear the danger of morphing into an essay nor would that be a reason for deletion. I'm not persuaded by the merge suggestions because for me the difference in the concepts is not so much between speech and words but that overwriting is a florid and overwrought style, not just a lot of words. Thincat (talk) 08:08, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In what way does this article differ from a dictionary definition? Also, see WP:NOTESSAY. Its also a poor and dull dictionary definition; I'd suggest quoting George Orwell on the subject, or Stella Gibbons. I agree that overwriting and verbiosity mean different things; if this is a cadidate for merging surely the target would be Purple prose. TheLongTone (talk) 13:00, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All work and no play make Djm-leighpark a dull boy! The Gibbons suggestion seems to be "Gibbons, Stella Dorothea". doi:10.1093/ref:odnb/39831. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help); I don't have the source access so cannot assist. I do note, albeit cold comfort, the purple prose appearrs related to literature, whereas overwritten appears to apply to both fiction and technical writing, per (Demír, 2019) who I have recently introduced to the article. Djm-leighpark (talk) 23:43, 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 redirect to KITT#KARR. RL0919 (talk) 23:12, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

KARR (Knight Rider)

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

Having just rescued KITT#Reception_and_significance by adding the linked section there (and cutting a ton on fancruft and trivia from the bloated article), I submit that his KARR equivalent (KARR was the antagonist of the series that KITT was the "hero" of) is beyond rescue (it is a WP:PLOT summary in WP:FANCRUFT style, mostly unreferenced and it fails WP:GNG). In my research for KITT, KARR is mentioned in the sidenotes, generally as a plot summary, one article had a single sentence or two (but no detailed analysis) on how it was the "fearful" side of automation (KITT is "good AI" because it has a human friend, KARR is "bad AI" since it has no human oversight; interesting but not enough for its own article, maybe a footnote in the article about AI takeover or Existential risk from artificial general intelligence could be added; if anyone wants to work on this the mention I reference is here). Not sure if a redirect to KITT#KARR_redesign makes sense since that sections pretty bad and probably should go as well. PS. There is nothing to merge here - it's all plot summary, and effectively unreferenced to boot. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:57, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:57, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:57, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:57, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to KITT. Notable info, but as the KITT page seems to be also a list of the various variant vehicles, this info is prolly better placed there. - jc37 03:14, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with KITT —¿philoserf? (talk) 08:00, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nominator's argument. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:46, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ambrosiawater (talk) 06:01, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:50, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect - The topic does not have the sources necessary to stand alone at this time. TTN (talk) 15:36, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Redirect to KITT#KARR. A quick look at the nominated article seems to bear out the nominator's assertion that there is nothing to merge for a lack of proper sourcing, but I think it is reasonable to have a redirect for navigational purposes. There does exist some coverage of KARR, e.g. here, here, and here, but it seems to be mostly in relation to KITT, so it seems reasonable to cover KARR in the KITT article. I also agree with the nominator that the KITT#KARR section could use a complete overhaul. If that section is expanded enough (with proper sourcing) we could discuss splitting it off to a stand-alone article again, but for now this would seem to be the best solution. TompaDompa (talk) 15:38, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect To KITT, although it may be out of the scope of the KITT article since it's an entirely different character. Still, better than this mess of cruft._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 22:50, 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 delete. ✗plicit 12:26, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sybil Drew

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

Non-notable filmaker. Sources cover her films and book, however none which are independent provide significant coverage of the subject herself. Jack Frost (talk) 10:38, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 10:38, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 10:38, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 10:38, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 10:38, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:09, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:32, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Filmmaker Sybil Drew is significant because she released a documentary film in 2020 of significance that "chronicled" and documented the building of one of the largest Industrial Parks in the world^[1], and the largest Solar Farm in the midwestern United States. It is an important film because it is one of the only films produced so far that shows the city of South Bend, Indiana and background of current political rising star and possible future US president Pete Buttigieg^[2]. Because of it's educational and cultural importance it was recently included as a US Public Library System documentary film selection for 2021. ^[3] RodelAudio (talk) 11:31, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

Sybil Drew should not be deleted because her film Prime Farmland is successful and played online on Amazon and lots of other places.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1008:b061:e9f9:3c53:b72c:e8a9:4560 (talk) 23:22, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I disagree, keep Sybil Drew because she is a notable documentary filmmaker with a track record of making films.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:6010:3a02:b00:d5bc:6726:642a:d05 (talk) 23:29, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - While her works might be notable, it doesn't appear the she is - and notability is not inherited. BilledMammal (talk) 22:55, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Noting the obvious logged out comments above by the same person.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:44, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete based on assessment of sources.

**Source assessment table:**
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
IMDB		WP:IMDB		✘ No
Chicago Tribune 1			Only mentions the subject as part of the activism	✘ No
Chicago Tribune 2			Actually covers the subject	✔ Yes
Truthout	Written by subject		Not about the subject	✘ No
South Bend Tribune			Doesn't mention subject at all	✘ No
PV Magazine		?	Doesn't mention subject at all	✘ No
C Good TV		WP:VENDOR	Just a brief bio	✘ No
Amazon Book	Written by subject	WP:VENDOR	Not about subject	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Most of the sources are either written by the subject, don't mention the subject at all, or from unreliable sources, so this is a clear GNG fail. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 14:14, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- As per Qwaiiplayer, with especially problematic being insufficient sources.--Melaleuca alternifolia | talk 19:29, 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. In the absence of any sources being presented, assertions that it's old so there must be sources do not pass muster. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:18, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sound Fighter Systems

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

Fails WP:NCORP. The sources in the article are advertorials, and I am unable to find any additional sourcing which would meet the threshold of notability. Jack Frost (talk) 10:29, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 10:29, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 10:29, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as per nom. all the references are advertorials. --Whiteguru (talk) 12:50, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Almost 50 years old, founded in 1973 and is considered one of the main noise reduction companies. Partnered with major utility and energy companies in the US. There are many good sources too, which can later be added. Lopnursands (talk) 04:12, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Lopnursands, I'm sure you won't mind listing a few of those "...many good sources..."? --Jack Frost (talk) 00:28, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:33, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per above! An old organization with reliable coverage present. INeedToFlyForever (talk) 13:00, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
INeedToFlyForever, where, may I ask, is this "reliable coverage"? --Jack Frost (talk) 00:31, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:41, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~, Delete -- I don't see any reliable coverage, Google search offers only brief mentions and company's official sites. The age of a company does not necessarily make it notable.--Melaleuca alternifolia | talk 19:33, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Melaleuca alternifolia, you !vote says Keep but your reasoning points to Delete. Can you check again? HighKing⁺⁺ 20:13, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for noticing! It is a Delete.--Melaleuca alternifolia | talk 20:18, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. That means, nothing that relies on company information or announcements or interviews, etc. None of the references in the article meet the criteria.

Jerusalem Post reference has been "written" by "DN Media Network" which specialised in paid promotion. Its churnalism. Fails WP:ORGIND.
EconoTimes reference doesn't even have a credited author and has a disclaimer from the company at the bottom. More churnalism, this is also paid promotion.
Yahoo article is written by "Brand Voice" and also has a disclaimer at the bottom. Yup, it is also naked paid promotion (slips up with "*our* LSE sound-absorbtive panels") and yet more churnalism.
TMCnet reference is also promotion and churnalism. TMC allows you to submit your own articles - hence the "author" is "Special Guest"

I have been unable to find any articles with any "Independent Content" as per ORGIND. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:13, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – I agree with HighKing's source analysis: there's nothing here that meets the deliberately strict WP:NCORP standards. All the cited coverage is promotional, and I can find nothing that would be sufficiently independent and substantial to contribute toward notability. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:02, 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. Specific sources must be presented at AfD for consideration, per WP:THREE. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:41, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Massey

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

Successful performer, but doesn't have the significance or coverage to meet WP:GNG or WP:ENT. NOTE: not ther same Kevin Massey as the last article, which was deleted at AfD. Boleyn (talk) 08:10, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:06, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:06, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:06, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I see 638 hits on a google news search. Did you check all of them? This article needs more referencing, but I think we could find sufficient media coverage if we looked. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:24, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:36, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are sufficient news coverage hits on google to pass GNG. Namkongville (talk) 15:18, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Number of hits is not an acceptable way of establishing notability, SIGCOV is. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 23:41, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:41, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Ghits are not applicable at Afd. No indication of being notable. Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 15:09, 30 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 (WP:NPASR). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:40, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Publify

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:N. 2007 AfD was in a time of different standards, and without very convincing arguments. Boleyn (talk) 08:24, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:05, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:36, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom: no current evidence of notability, no convincing arguments from the previous AfD, and no good sourcing as is. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 23:46, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:40, 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:43, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Immediate Action Unit

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

No reliable sources to verify article WP:VERIFY. Article based on 2004 information from www.specialoperations.com similar to a forum. Newer sources either use similar wording from People's Armed Police that describes all units including IAU or use wording from this article to describe the unit for example "Name frequently changes". Melbguy05 (talk) 09:27, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:40, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:40, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:40, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:40, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 08:39, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is a source that has SIGCOV, and two other high quality sources with passing mentions:

Bennett, Richard (2012-04-24). Espionage: Spies and Secrets. Random House. ISBN 978-1-4481-3214-0.
Harvard Asia Quarterly. Harvard Asia Law Society, Harvard Asia Business Club, and Asia at the Graduate School of Design. 2005.
Guo, Xuezhi (2012-08-29). China's Security State: Philosophy, Evolution, and Politics. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1-107-02323-9.

I'm leaning keeping on this one because I doubt there are no sources in Chinese to pass WP:GNG, but since I don't know the Chinese name to verify, I'm not going to cast a bolded vote on this for now. Jumpytoo Talk 06:20, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bennett's 2002 book - the author's comment that it is more than one unit is unusual as well as that they are part of the Ministry of State Security and not the People's Armed Police (PAP). The author describes the unit similar to www.specialoperations.com that it is not comparable to the West, does martials arts and the unit's training emphasis. The author may have used www.specialoperations.com as their source or alternatively the source that was used for www.specialoperations.com such as book. Guo's 2012 book - the author surprisingly does not mention the Snow Leopard Commando Unit as part of the PAP which was reported as being responsible for the security of the 2008 Olympic Games.^[1] I can't access the full 2005 Harvard Asia Quarterly article but it's introduction uses the same wording as www.specialoperations.com "is drawn from the police force rather than the military". Oberoi's 2006 book mentions the unit:

Oberoi, Vijay (2006). Special forces : doctrine, structures and employment across the spectrum of conflict in the Indian context. New Delhi: Knowledge World. ISBN 9788187966395.

Oberoi states it was formed in 1982 as Unit 722, was renamed to PAP Special Police Group and "According to one report, it is now called the Immediate Action Unit". Unfortunately, that is all that is available. Wikipedia already has an article for a unit formed in 1982 and named Unit 722 - Special Police Unit of the Chinese People's Armed Police Force. On Baidu Baike the unit formed in 1982 is named as Falcon Commando Unit (Chinese: 猎鹰突击队) the same as a Chinese Wikipedia article zh:中國人民武裝警察部隊獵鷹突擊隊. China officially stated in 2019 that the PAP had three teams: Falcon formed in 1982, Snow Leopard formed in 2002 and a new unit Mountain Eagle.^[2] -Melbguy05 (talk) 13:48, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, yeah I can see the possibility that IAU is actually the Falcon unit, or some subunit. Unfortunately only the source you provided has this association from what I can find and most sources use "Immediate Action Unit" even as passing mention, so a merge/redirect doesn't seem to be a good idea just yet. The English sourcing is quite poor as you noted, and attempted literal translations didn't seem to pop up anything. Am hoping someone else can chime in with more insight or sources. Jumpytoo Talk 00:15, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

References

^ "Beijing's Answer to Bond". Beijing Review. 2008-01-17. Archived from the original on 2019-11-21.
^ Huang Panyue (21 August 2019). "New counter-terror force in Xinjiang - China Military". PLA Daily. Retrieved 8 October 2019.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:38, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the discussion so far, I'd say delete. If we can't even find enough sourcing about the Immediate Action Unit to determine whether or not it's the same as the Falcon Commando Unit (or the Special Police Unit), then I don't think there's enough sourcing to write an informative article. As far as I can tell, no one has even been able to figure out the Chinese-language equivalent of the name "Immediate Action Unit" (I tried searching for literal translations and turned up nothing). —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 10:53, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG with only the Espionage book Jumpytoo mentioned. It was the one source of significant coverage I could find. Heartmusic678 (talk) 13:55, 2 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. ✗plicit 12:28, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vugarixx

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO. In most references, only the person's name is mentioned and some references have almost copy+pasted the same text. NMW03 (talk) 09:55, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NMW03 (talk) 09:55, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. NMW03 (talk) 09:55, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet notability criterias, this is WP:SELFPROMOTE. Toghrul R (talk) 07:50, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:31, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-- References seems quite suspicious to me, most of them are only short articles with brief mentions. Fails to meet coverage criteria. Google does not offer any substantial resources.--Melaleuca alternifolia | talk 19:36, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete At a glance I'm not seeing any major coverage and it doesn't look like he meets criteria for musicians either. BuySomeApples (talk) 18:57, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nominator Idunnox3 (talk) 22:34, 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 delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:18, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Prateik Chaudhary

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

Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. He has played a role in Paramavatar Shri Krishna. I tried to redirect to Paramavatar Shri Krishna, but seems it didn't work. Most of the sources and press release and interviews. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 10:34, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 10:34, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 10:34, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:TOOSOON Baponghosh (talk) 19:34, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Okay, perhaps its WP:TOOSOON but failing GNG is senseless, yeah he’s played a role on national tv an important lead in well recognised television show, and you think he’s failed for General notability? And also did sole lead show on MX Player for that it’s second season is also coming, idc wether its deleted or not, but putting under some random guidelines doesn’t make any sense. SnehaBanik (talk) 04:26, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You should probably read up on Wikipedia's notability guidelines in order to cast well-worded input here. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:27, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Once the MX player series comes and becomes notable and when he has at least one more significant role in a notable production, please try again via AFC. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 01:16, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: NACTOR is not met because it needs "significant roles" in "multiple notable productions." Also lacks significant coverage to meet GNG. -- Ab207 (talk) 04:32, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Doesn't satisfy NACTOR yet and if he does in the future, creation through AfC will be the ideal way to go. Sunshine1191 (talk) 03:48, 30 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. (non-admin closure) Sreeram Dilak (talk) 00:42, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bismil Azimabadi

AfDs for this article:

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

The article fails WP:POET and WP:AUTHOR. No reliable sources found on a WP:BEFORE. Sreeram Dilak (talk) 10:29, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sreeram Dilak (talk) 10:29, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Sreeram Dilak (talk) 10:29, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Sreeram Dilak (talk) 10:29, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. He is a notable Urdu poet. Sarfaroshi Ki Tamanna are his words and therefore he fulfils all the points at WP:POET. The article could do with some attention. Whispyhistory (talk) 20:40, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable Urdu poet and Indian Independence movement activist with many reliable newspaper and book references. Ngrewal1 (talk) 23:02, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A notable Urdu poet with his biography Bismil Azimabadi: Shakhsiyat awr Fan (Bismil Azimabadi: Life and art) authored by Muhammad Iqbal. ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 18:01, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Gazal world Can you help us with more sources that discuss Bismil? Thanks. ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 18:06, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Let me check. --Gazal world (talk) 18:40, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep certainly notable. I am sure, numbers of offline sources would be avilable in library. --Gazal world (talk) 18:36, 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 with no prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:50, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Barinholtz

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

Non notable actor who fails to satisfy WP:NACTOR as they have not taken significant lead roles in movies they have featured in. Furthermore they have won no prestigious awards. Furthermore they lack in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them thus a GNG fail as well. A google search shows mentions in unreliable sources with no reputation for fact checking or possess editorial oversight. The article claims they are most notable for a seriesSuperstore (TV series) but they do not appear to have significant roles there as well. Celestina007 (talk) 23:38, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 23:38, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 23:38, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 23:38, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It does not have to be lead roles, and it does not have to be significant roles in films. He had major role in Superstore, being in more than half of episodes. [31],[32], [33][[34]. He stars in the upcoming series. [35]. Keep. Kirill C1 (talk)

Not quite their names doesn’t even seem to appear in casts and having negligible roles does In fact make it a WP:NACTOR fail. Read NACTOR again for a clearer understanding. Furthermore they lack in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them thus a GNG fail. Celestina007 (talk) 22:53, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- - His name appears in cast in this article [36] - he was at finale table read and substantial recurring role in a series that lasted six seasons and was shown in multiple countries is significant enough, and he has other roles and passes WP:NACTOR. There are other sources on him with regard to other works. Kirill C1 (talk) 10:57, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to point out that Barinholtz isn't only an actor, but also a creator of an upcoming Netflix series, as noted in the article. That said, I do agree that as it stands there isn't enough coverage on reliable sources to make up a proper biography article. --Nurtsio (talk) 09:18, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:04, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 09:14, 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 no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 16:10, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Zombie Beach

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

Article about a film, not reliably sourced as passing WP:NFILM. The strongest notability claim here is awards from minor film festivals that don't pass NFILM #3 (which is looking for festivals on the Cannes-Berlin-Toronto-Venice-Sundance tier, not just any small fry film festival that exists), referenced entirely to the festivals' own self-published websites about themselves rather than any evidence of media coverage about the awards to demonstrate that they're seen as notable -- and apart from that, the article is otherwise referenced entirely to the film's IMDb profile, a dead webradio station and a non-notable genre film blog rather than real GNG-worthy media coverage. There's just nothing here that's "inherently" notable enough to exempt the referencing from having to be better than this. Bearcat (talk) 02:04, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 02:04, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 02:04, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:33, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, As the movie is old it has been shown in independent Carmike Cinemas (now AMC Theatres). Also many of the links are going to sites that have either changed or discontinued, which can be expected for older movies. As many Independant Film maker wants to make it to a Top Tier Festival, it is also quite difficult. All Awards are listed on IMBD - Zombie Beach (2010) Awards tehnam ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:20, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Simply having been shown in theatres is not an automatic notability claim in and of itself if there isn't any media coverage of the film (e.g. reviews by real film critics in real newspapers). Primary source links, dead or not, are not notability-supporting sources if there isn't any media coverage of the film. IMDb is not a reliable source if there isn't any media coverage of the film. Even an award isn't a notability claim until you can show that it's an award whose presentations get covered by the media. And on and so forth: notability is not a measure of what the article says, it's a measure of how well you can or can't source what the article says to evidence that it got media coverage. Bearcat (talk) 00:55, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 09:11, 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 redirect to Wilmington Rail Viaduct. I'm using what seemed to be the best target from the discussion, although there wasn't a strong consensus on that point. The target choice can be discussed further at an appropriate venue if needed. RL0919 (talk) 23:20, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Landlith, Delaware

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

This is a major failure either in map reading or in classification on the part of the GNIS folks, because this is extremely baldly a rail point. It is in fact the interlocking at the south end of what used to be a major Pennsylvania RR engine facility (you can still see the foundations of the roundhouse) and is now Amtrak's Wilmington shops. Another yard (now NS) is just to the east, and just SW is a prison. And that's all that has ever been here. I was wondering whether this is a notable rail spot, but while there are thousands of hits for it, maybe a third of them are for a single document, the 1983 Amtrak funding bill, in which they proposed to extend CTC from here all the way south to DC on the Northeast Corridor. There was a branch that headed off through the city from here, and that is all I could find. Extremely obviously not a community of any sort, and from what I can tell not a notable point on the rail line. Mangoe (talk) 03:11, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 04:45, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 04:45, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rename > Landlith Interlocking & redirect > Wilmington Rail Viaduct. Djflem (talk) 07:15, 16 August 2021 (UTC) or alternatively redirect Riverside–11th Street Bridge, the bigger district in which it's located. Djflem (talk) 14:42, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 09:05, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect It was a railroad station (1889), though a railroad-oriented article refers residents, perhaps meaning people who used the station. In the early 1900's there was a Landlith baseball team. I found one possibly WP:RS article about the Landlith railyard that might be useful at the Wilmington Rail Viaduct article. GBooks only found railroad-related items. I found no indication that anyone lived at landlith, though it seems like there were a few railroad-related fatalities. I found one article about the place as a railyard, so it is marginally notable and might meet what is sufficient for an article under WP:STATION. However, I feel this is a run of the mill station and should be redirected. To create an article about this location as a station, the article would need to have much stronger notability than one article. Cxbrx (talk) 14:25, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BTW - Delaware Place Names (1966) refers to Landlith as a "locality", which is defined elsewhere in the source "as a particular place or location, sometimes with past or present cultural associations". This is not a strong reference for supporting a notable community at this locale. Cxbrx (talk) 17:34, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. USGS topo maps do show a "Landlith" from 1904. In 1948 we see that the label likely was not placed directly over what it refers to, since it is directly above a swamp. Right to the east of the label is a rail yard, and to the west is a settlement; by 1968 the swamp is no longer marked, and by 1993 the prison is there. It seems like kind of an edge-case, but per Cxbrx's analysis there doesn't seem to be any significant coverage of this as a distinct locale. jp×g 22:10, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:00, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Josef Skružný

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

Subject fails WP:GNG. No reliable sources found. Requesting speedy delete. Sreeram Dilak (talk) 06:11, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sreeram Dilak (talk) 06:11, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Sreeram Dilak (talk) 06:11, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. Sreeram Dilak (talk) 06:11, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Sreeram Dilak:, I see you're a new user, so I wanted to give a friendly reminder that WP:BEFORE should be followed before nominating an article for deletion - including a simple google books search of the subject's name. I found quite a few hits on Google books of his name, so I can't imagine that "No reliable sources found" could be true with a WP:BEFORE. Hope this helps - I'll follow up with some of the sources below in a bit. - Whisperjanes (talk) 18:07, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I've found a lot of sources under his name and pseudonyms, as well as alternate spellings of his name (like Josefa Skružného, J. Skružného, etc), including coverage of his books and screenplays in the Czech press. If other editors don't want to go through the sources I picked below (which may not show up, since a lot of them are just Google's snippet view), then just Google Book search his name or one of the alternative names.
Either way, he seems to have enough coverage to pass WP:GNG, or at least WP:AUTHOR. Here's some of the sources I found:
- Coverage of him and his work[37]
- There's coverage of some of his plays, such as "Podvodnice" (1923)[38], and others[39]
- A comedy film of his received coverage[40]
- This source seems to call him a "well-known" humorist[41]
- This source says he was a part of a circle of authors for "Folk theater" (Czech: "Lidové divadlo")[42]
- Some of Svatopluk Innemann's works were based on the ideas/themes in Skružný's works (I don't know if this translation means he filmed some of Skružný's screenplays, or was inspired by them?)[43]
- One of his novels gained "widespread popularity" (Translated from the snippet "Tento románek Josefa Skružného , jemuž dopomohl k široké popularitě okruh čtenářů autorem redigovaných „ Humoristických listů “ , byl zfilmován režisérem ...")[44]
- A popular comedy book of his was made into a film[45]
- He was screenwriter for the film Lásky Kačenky Strnadové [46]
  - Whisperjanes (talk) 20:26, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 08:58, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, and echo that sometimes it takes work to find sources about 19th century subjects in another language. Thankfully whisperjanes has now done that work. This is an WP:NEXIST pass, and that should have been clear through due diligence WP:BEFORE nominating. - Astrophobe (talk) 17:36, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per the large number of sources supplied by Whisperjanes. Curbon7 (talk) 18:55, 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 speedy delete as hoax, page creator has also been blocked. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:48, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Loyalty: The World Of A Teen (TV series)

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

This seems like a WP:HOAX, no source seems to confirm this show exists. The creator also is responsible for "Disney God Productions", now at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Disney God Productions (ping User:Whiteguru). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:46, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:46, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:46, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Another elaborate hoax from this user. Upcoming TV series, this article has been in preparation for quite some time. As per nom, WP:HOAX. --Whiteguru (talk) 08:04, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hoax. Not a single Google hit for the title and doesn't seem to actually be mentioned in any of the 'references' in the article. Neiltonks (talk) 10:08, 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 Deleted as G3 (hoax): copy of American Broadcasting Company. — Diannaa (talk) 12:43, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disney God Productions

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

This page appears to be a spoof. WP:BEFORE finds a blog, and little else. Disneygod.com has a security error. No other sources appear to be relevant. Whiteguru (talk) 07:03, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete. A likely WP:HOAX and/or WP:CONTENTFORK using a "funny" name. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:41, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:36, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:36, 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 nomination withdrawn because somebody finally did what needed to be done. Bearcat (talk) 03:54, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Angelo Tsarouchas

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

WP:BLP of an actor and comedian, not properly demonstrating that he would pass our notability criteria for actors or comedians. As written, this literally just says that he exists, the end, and then reference bombs his existence to a stack of nine separate citations without actually saying anything about his career that would even be measurable against our inclusion standards for actors or comedians -- but after having reviewed the stack, I still can't add much useful content: two of them are brief and unsubstantive blurbs that aren't about him doing anything notability-boosting; one is a Q&A interview in which he's talking about himself in the first person; and the rest are covering him in non-notable contexts like having been cast in a failed pilot that never advanced to series, having been in a film that doesn't have a strong claim to passing our notability criteria for films, or just soundbiting his thoughts on having Greek ancestry.
All of this, further, results from a recent restubbing of a highly advertorialized version that was completely unsourced, which in turn resulted from an earlier conflict of interest takeover of a semi-advertorialized version that was sourced exclusively to the IMDb profiles of his film or television projects, and if you go back to before the IMDb footnotes were added you just get right back to "completely unsourced" again, so there's no viable older version of this article to revert back to either.
Obviously no prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can write and reference a new article properly, but especially in light of all the advertorialism that's infected this article in the past, it's better to just blow this up and start over rather than holding onto a version with this little informational value in the meantime. Bearcat (talk) 02:44, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 02:44, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 02:44, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:31, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article definitely needs improvement, though combining the Greek, French, and this version, might lead to half-decent article. Looking at the references, some are a bit marginal, but there are extensive other sources doing a brief Proquest search. Nfitz (talk) 00:38, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The value in having any article vests in it actually providing information. The fact that it might theoretically be possible to write a better article about him than this does not mean it's necessary to keep this in its current form pending anybody actually attempting to expand it to provide any notable information — if you were willing to tackle expanding it now, then that might count for something depending on the strength of what you were actually able to add, but there's absolutely no value in holding onto it in this form if improvement isn't actually happening, because as written it literally just says that he exists, the end. Bearcat (talk) 17:12, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheChronium 14:07, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Bold third relist for more input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 06:25, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per WP:ARTN, notability concerns the subject and is not dependent on article content. It appears there is room for improvement and sources are available, so this article should be expanded, not deleted. NemesisAT (talk) 15:15, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's only a compelling argument if somebody actually commits to do some improvement now. It's granted that articles don't need to be perfect right off the bat, but they do still need to actually contain a basic notability claim right off the bat before they're allowed to exist — there's no value in holding onto a version that literally just says that the person exist, while containing no information as to why their existence might be noteworthy at all, just because somebody could theoretically add a proper notability claim 50 years from now. Bearcat (talk) 00:03, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Yes, this looks like a keep to me. Bearcat, you might consider reading perspectives on this topic at WP:RUBBISH. Fundamentally, this page doesn't meet any of the WP:DEL-REASONs, and so should not be deleted according to the deletion policy. Suriname0 (talk) 23:46, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep articles can't be deleted just because they aren't extensive enough yet. If the sources exist to make a better article then it should stay. If it's so bad to keep an incomplete page around then you could...y'know, maybe fix it up instead of trying to delete it? I'll give it a shot if no one else has time. BuySomeApples (talk) 05:05, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As my nomination statement very clearly explained, I tried to fix it. But the sources present in the article add nothing that bolsters notability at all, as they're all about things like being cast in a pilot that never got picked up to series, acting in a film that doesn't pass our notability criteria for films, glancingly mentioning his existence without being about him in any non-trivial way, or just soundbiting his opinions about having Greek ancestry. If I'd found one thing in any of the sources that constituted a proper notability claim for an actor, I'd have added it to the damn article and walked away — but there just isn't a notability claim to be located in any of the footnotes present. Bearcat (talk) 00:20, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problem is that you're looking for notability as an actor, when a lot of the sources are about his standup comedy career. I put more information about his stand-up career, and also added info about specials and other work. I'm gonna keep working on it since I have a little time tonight. BuySomeApples (talk) 02:11, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearcat: Actually, looking back at your nomination I kind of agree with you. The version you nominated was just a single line with a bunch of sources at the end. I can see why WP:TNTing it made sense. I did a lot of work remaking it so hopefully it looks a little better now. (if this nom closes soon enough, I'll nom it at dyk since its basically a new page). BuySomeApples (talk) 03:17, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:39, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fauzia Yasmin

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

Tagged for notability since 2012. Wikipedia has articles about many of her relatives, but notability is not inherited. Her website says she won two awards, but there's nothing about them in independent sources, and they are not well-known and significant enough to meet WP:ANYBIO. Of the five cited sources, sydneybashi-bangla.com is a photo spread of her in a private home; banglamusic.com and Banglapedia don't mention her; and the last two are the websites of her and her daughter. Searches of the usual Google types, including by Bengali script, found nothing more than brief mentions. Worldbruce (talk) 12:54, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 12:54, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 12:54, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 12:54, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:04, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the award from the Shilpakala Academy seems like an indicator of notability (and her main period of prominence is pre-internet, so the lack of online coverage is unconcerning), so I'd be pushing for "keep", but if the copyvio issues aren't dealt with immediately, it ought to be speedy deleted. Furius (talk) 13:22, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The only source I've found for that award is her website. She may have received it, but we don't usually take a subject's word for it. The Shilpakala Academy is a significant institution (some may note that her husband was a director general of it). But I haven't found any other information about a "Gunijon Shambardhana" - not when it was established, who received it, why it was awarded, or what it consisted of - it isn't a well-known and significant award. It is supposedly from 2006, so one would expect some online sources. I have an extensive personal library on Bangladeshi topics, and have found no sources there either. Of course, mine isn't as comprehensive as a major research university library. Those in my area are scheduled to reopen to the public in the next few months. I'm willing to withdraw the nomination until I can search them if there's widespread belief that sources must exist. --Worldbruce (talk) 21:06, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is a spelling error for "Gunijan Shambardhana" which delivers a few hits for various people on google... So does the other award. But I'm quite willing to believe that sources don't exist if they cannot be found. Furius (talk) 00:12, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheChronium 14:03, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 06:18, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete i spent almost 15 minutes to search for the sources (including in Bangladeshi language for ফৌজিয়া ইয়াসমিন) to verify for the subject's award Shilpakala Academy, but unfortunately, i returned with empty handed. In fact, Bangla Wikipedia article[47] is also tagged with sourcing concerns. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 12:17, 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. RL0919 (talk) 05:48, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oakdale, Gloucester County, Virginia

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

PROD contested on procedural grounds. As far as I can tell, this is a small housing development along the shores of the York River. AFDs such as this, this, and this have formed a pretty good consensus that WP:GEOLAND does not extend down to the housing development level. From what I'm seeing, the majority of hits for this are either references to other places or real estate listings. WP:GNG doesn't seem to be met. Hog Farm _Talk 04:37, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 04:37, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 04:37, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I declined this PROD because it had been dePRODed a year ago but I would have otherwise easily deleted it. Hog Farm has been responsible for cleaning out a lot of very marginal locations that never had sustained communities living at them. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:00, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - my own search turned up a fair few sources (at first glance) but I ended up discarding all but this one because all of them related to other Oakdales, rather than this one. That one source is an original document which seems to confirm the place existed and was home to at least one shop ("Deacon's store") in 1902. I don't think that's enough on which to base an article. St★lwart¹¹¹ 05:48, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. USGS maps show nothing beyond a couple houses in 1906, 1952, 1965, and 1984 (Minitru's censorship notwithstanding, as they lack jurisdiction over USGS). Google's satellite view shows that there's a housing development nearby; there is a fire station a ways out, by the main road, but this is part of Hayes, VA; the businesses and DMV down to the south are part of Gloucester Point. If there is no documentation of the place in historical archives, we have nothing to support an article. jp×g 22:22, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom — Preceding unsigned comment added by Idunnox3 (talk • contribs)

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. Clear consensus not to delete. Whether or not to merge can be discussed outside of AfD. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:21, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hillary Rodham senior thesis

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NOTNEWS and WP:SUSTAINED - briefly in the news cycle, no new coverage since 2016 ([48] [49]). Thesis itself not inherently notable. The claim to notability came from the limiting of access and subsequent release of the thesis, so falls under the events notability guideline, which it fails per WP:PERSISTENCE. A re-nom was suggested by the closer of the previous AfD on the basis that its notability might change if Hillary was not elected; the paucity of WP:INDEPTH and lack of WP:SIGCOV is perhaps clearer now than it was at the time. Jr8825 o Talk 03:30, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Jr8825 o Talk 03:30, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Jr8825 o Talk 03:30, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Jr8825 o Talk 03:30, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative proposal. We have around fifty articles on the "Early life of" (or "Early life and career of") particularly notable figures - Sinatra, Stalin, Clint Eastwood, Jan Smuts, Biden, Obama, and so on. Break out the "early life" content from Hillary Clinton into an Early life and career of Hillary Clinton, and merge this into it. BD2412 T 03:59, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is a good suggestion. I agree much of the content is sourced and well written, my concern is that the topic fails the notability threshold for a stand-alone article. Placing it in the context of Hillary's early life is a good idea - I suppose the question is, is someone willing to do that? Jr8825 o Talk 15:13, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be glad to. BD2412 T 16:36, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per BD2412. The thesis itself is worthy of an article; it was covered for 23 years, between 1993 and 2016, and I believe that is long enough to qualify as sustained coverage, and in the absence of an alternative proposal I would !vote Keep, but I find the argument for the merge compelling, and believe it would improve coverage of Clinton. BilledMammal (talk) 04:14, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Changed from merge to keep, per SecretName's argument against merge. BilledMammal (talk) 12:41, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The nominator makes a cogent argument for reassessing the notability of this topic. BD2412 makes a good proposal about what to do with this. I will have to ruminate and come back. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:27, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge per BD2412. To claim that it doesn't have sustained coverage is absolutely absurd: it had multiple decades of sustained coverage. The nom's citation to NOTNEWS is even more absurd; in what way could a First Lady's college thesis possibly be considered routine or mundane? I don't see any good reason to delete. Mlb96 (talk) 06:34, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at substantial coverage in RS, of which there's extremely little, it's small clusters of news pieces mostly from 2007, when a reporter went and read it and other outlets picked it up, and 2016 (when she ran for election). The vast majority of RS coverage is trivial/non-significant, particularly the 2016 coverage (which mostly focussed on her political views) and mentions outside the cluster time frames. I'd argue it is mundane - it's a minor scandal related to a public figure, of which there are countless other non-notable examples. Aside from the fact the limited coverage suggests it fails the events notability guideline by itself, I think it's a case of US-centric newspaper recentism, which makes it unsuitable for an encyclopedic article. Jr8825 o Talk 15:13, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Jr8825: I think you are not factoring in that in the 1990s and very early 2000s, when it appears this was the most controversial and discussed, the internet was in its infancy. Few news sources readily have the bulk of their articles and broadcasts from the 1990s and very early 2000s online, so that era of coverage would fail to sufficiently register with an online search. SecretName101 (talk) 12:45, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@SecretName101: I dug through the newspaper archival services I have access to via my uni library (Factiva, ProQuest Historical Newspapers and British Library Newspapers), which together cover most major US news media throughout the period 1990–2010. There's next to nothing. The only significant coverage of the thesis is from March 2007: the two simultaneous 2 March NBC articles by Bill Dedman, the journalist who dug it up by instructing his students to blog about it, the Boston Globe article picking the story up 2 days later and the WaPo write-up at the end of the month. Our article is almost entirely reliant on the NBC/Globe pieces. It doesn't seem to have gained much traction in RS – there are no other articles about the thesis in the archives (obviously they exclude less established media sources). There are a fistful of passing mentions which clearly fail SIGCOV: 3 first lady profiles from 1992, 1993 and 1998 name-drop Alan Schechter as her thesis advisor at Wellesley College within detailed profiles of Hillary's life and education, but don't go into much detail about it. A deeply unflattering 1999 "Special Report" called "Will Hillary Be Pilloried?" in the conservative magazine Insight includes the following passing mention "How radical was she? ...shortly after graduation, Hillary requested that her senior thesis, examining the social programs of Lyndon Johnson's War on Poverty, be sealed from the public. While it is not likely she will be grilled on the details of a paper written 30 years ago, the public life and policy initiatives of Rodham Clinton now will be closely examined". Following Dedman's 2007 "scoop" he was interviewed in the last couple of minutes of a 29 May 2007 NPR broadcast themed around theses ("Tales From the Thesis Trenches") for the end of the academic year (the interviewer is jokingly dismissive, saying "Hillary Clinton’s thesis has become sort of a holy grail for a lot of conservative bloggers and talk show hosts"; the other 9/10ths of the transcript are interviews with recent graduates). The Sept 2007 NYT article we cite for a summary of the dissertation isn't about the thesis itself, it's an overview of her early life and education which provides a brief overview of the thesis in the final paragraph – again, not SIGCOV, the subject is Hillary. It next resurfaces in 2016 with a spate of election coverage: it gets brief one-sentence mentions on TV transcripts for a PBS NewsHour Election Special and a "Who is Hillary Clinton?" CNN special, and an article in the Vancouver Sun on "young Hillary Clinton" mentions it briefly in the broader context of her education, noting that "the thesis has been cast by Clinton's critics as evidence of Clinton's early association with radicals". You might be able to find a few more sources if you scour through Google since the archives don't cover a lot of web content, but you'll have to wade through a bunch of non-RS. Editors are insisting this had had lots of coverage, but I simply can't see it. Another thing that did come up, amusingly, was a 2008 Fox News: Hannity’s America transcript called "Putting Michelle Obama's Thesis Under the Microscope"... Jr8825 • Talk 14:28, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability does not require that topics remain in the news, just that there are sufficient reliable sources to write a neutral and information article. It is linked to in other articles and has had over 10,000 views this year. Clinton is an important political figure and her intellectual development remains of great interest. TFD (talk) 15:40, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Gives off strong WP:TRUMPNOT vibes. What about Hillary Rodham credit card statement, Hillary Rodham Zillow listing, Hillary Rodham diary entry, and Hillary Rodham dream journal? KidAd o SPEAK 17:14, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If there were notable, significant, and sustained controversies regarding any of the slippery slope examples you gave, then, sure, there'd be an argument for notability. SecretName101 (talk) 11:22, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- It would not have notability as her thesis in itself, but it does have notability as a right-wing talking point. This is much the same as The Pet Goat... AnonMoos (talk) 03:30, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is clear that it has notability due to the speculation, analysis, and controversy that it has generated over the years. Additionally, I believe that any merge would lose significant information about the notable controversy that it generated. Also, side note: the commenter in the last afd that said its notability could change was exhibiting bad practice. If articles are going to vary in notability based on the outcome of a pending election, then they do not pass notability prior to the election. SecretName101 (talk) 11:19, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That is indeed my view. I disagreed with other editors at the time that the topic passed the notability threshold for a stand-alone article. I thought then (and still think now) that coverage was standard scrutiny of a high-profile politician and there was never a large or consistent enough volume of RS coverage to indicate that the thesis and events surrounding it pass N(E)/NOTNEWS. To take a non-US example, I'm confident you could find a greater number of British RS news media discussing the number of children Boris Johnson may or may not have (and just like this article, you could probably cite bits of biographies) but it's pretty obviously unsuitable for a stand-alone article despite the coverage of the years. What's the significance of Johnson's children, causing that coverage? What it supposedly shows about Johnson's morals. What's the significance of Hillary's college thesis? What it supposedly shows about Hillary's politics. The notability stems from the politicians, not the events themselves, which is also why coverage is likely to spike at election time. Although not strictly policy, I'd also point to the recentism WP:10YEARTEST: I don't believe it's even been likely that the thesis will having lasting historical significance, which, in fairness to the commentors at the AfD, might have been different if she'd happened to become a US president of Lincoln-level fame. I think the near-complete absence of coverage now Hillary is no longer in political office/running for high office evidences this view. Jr8825 • Talk 11:53, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Even if right-wing writers, such as Barbara Olsen and David Brock had not written extensively on how they believed Alinsky influenced Clinton, the thesis itself gives an interesting insight into Clinton's intellectual development. Alinksy confirmed her opposition to "big government" and the Great Society. OTOH, she broke with Alinsky over whether change could come from inside. (See "Reading Hillary Rodham's hidden thesis," Bill Dedman, NBC News, March 2, 2007.) Alan Schechter, who was Clinton's thesis adviser, says, "My conclusion, she was already thinking in terms of practical politics, what works, what doesn't, more than on ideology." Also, Clinton's relationship with Alinsky (she spent time with him and was offered a job) is also a significant part of her life story. If early writings of other politicians are not notable, it's because first few of them wrote theses about politics and second their intellectual development isn't as important. We do however have articles about early books written by major political figures, such as Obama's Dreams from My Father and even Trump's The America We Deserve. TFD (talk) 16:54, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Those books obtained notability through notable-enough sales performances in publication. So not a great comparison on that last point. SecretName101 (talk) 20:24, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the subject has received significant coverage and I think it deserves its own article, per SecretName101's argument. Sahaib (talk) 15:20, 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. (non-admin closure) ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 17:30, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Man

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

Some mentions in local histories. Not enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:50, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:44, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:44, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

keep for someone living 400 years ago that is quite a lot of detail including a multi-page biography that someone wrote about him. More than sufficient for a historical figure. --hroest 17:59, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Several new sources added. As noted, this is a fair amount of detail and record for someone so long ago. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 14:31, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 18:50, 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. (non-admin closure) ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 17:35, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pomham

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

Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:10, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Sachem where I think we could readily work in the little that's known about this particular Sachem. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:45, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a sachem, I think they should have presumed notability, the same as a colonial governor of the same period would. Other sachems, such as Madockawando and Uncas, have similar levels of sourcing. Finding great numbers of sources is going to be difficult for leaders of peoples who did not leave behind a written record. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 13:37, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, Onel5969, it appears that Pomham is an alternate spelling. The more common spelling appears to be Pumham, which turns up a great many more sources. Does this influence your opinion at all? -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 16:04, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 18:48, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 18:48, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 18:48, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I will always mantain that we cannot hold historical figures to the same notability standards as people living in the internet age, or even the newspaper age. There's reliable mentions in sources like [50] and [51] and in older sources like [52]([53] establishes Pomham and Pumham as the same person). There's a 1918 Rhode Island Historical Society article Pomham and his fort (pp.31-36). The article seems to be in good shape and there's clearly sourcing establishing him as part of the historical record (making offline sourcing in the 300 years since he lived highly likely), which viewed in summation makes GNG arguable and notability clear. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:09, 30 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:37, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Storm Streaming Server

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

non notable software. Newly released, sourced to press releases, the companies own blog an interview with the developers and a vague reference to a newly published book. Google searches not finding much coverage.. noq (talk) 12:57, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:06, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. This is textbook; if sources are found, or emerge in the future, an article can be written then. {{Nihiltres |talk |edits}} 19:21, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's WP:TOOSOON. I couldn't find additional sources and the majority of the page sources are press releases or blogs. That leaves one reliable source (the book) and some may argue the Spider Web's web coverage is a second. Regardless, this fails WP:GNG. Heartmusic678 (talk) 12:20, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it I guess I get to defend my first-ever article on Wikipedia. I'm not very familiar with the whole deletion process, so pardon me if I'm doing something against the rules, but I would like to present my arguments here as well. While this is true that most sources relate to blog/post, these are primary sources for the History section. This is quite common for software articles. The application received coverage in one of Poland's most popular online tech blog (Spider's Web). I understand that some people might argue this is 100% objective, although it is not a sponsored article (such are also posted on mentioned site and marked accordingly). The book is the second source. It might not be a significant number of sources, but they are present. I might be wrong, but all those mentioned guidelines like WP:TOOSOON and WP:GNG do not provide precise requirements regarding the number of sources, time-frame etc. Once again - since I'm a new user and I lack experience, if there is anything I can do to improve the article (reach required number of sources etc) I would more than happy to do it. Nebuchadrezzar (talk) 19:58, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is exactly the place to make your arguments for keeping the article and you are welcome to contribute. The article itself however does not appear to meet the guidelines on notability. There is specific guidance for notability of software at WP:NSOFT and more generally at WP:GNG. Most of the references given in the article are not considered WP:reliable sources for the purpose of establishing notability. Specifically, the companies own website cannot do that, interviews with the developers do not do that nor do press releases. That leaves only the book. How much does the book discuss this software? And how does it do it? noq (talk) 12:50, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:45, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above nom and above comments. Waddles 🗩 🖉 00:49, 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) 22:42, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Roshni Haripriyan

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

Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. Only minor roles in few series TheChronium 14:01, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. TheChronium 14:01, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. TheChronium 14:01, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:13, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:Fails NACTORPillechan (പിള്ളേച്ചനോട് പറ) 07:07, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:43, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR Bapinghosh (talk) 19:56, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failure of WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. Furthermore, usernames of article creator and another account which had attempted to remove AfD tag are consistent with socks of indef-blocked Giriprasad Damodar 02--this would be a clear speedy delete per WP:G5 if confirmed. --Finngall ^talk 20:37, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - accounts are blocked and are obvious socks of GD02. Ravensfire (talk) 21:13, 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. ✗plicit 12:51, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Search Party (band)

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

Appears to be non-notable. Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 12:50, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 12:50, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 12:50, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 12:50, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheChronium 14:02, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:42, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Searching is tough due to their bland name, but searching in conjunction with the members' names or song titles reveals little of value. They only released about four songs, one of which may have been a minor hit in Italy, and then did nothing else before splitting. I can find no significant coverage of the band as a stand-alone entity, nor reliable reviews of their songs. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 17:21, 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 12:33, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IRIS (management festival)

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

A school's annual festival. The article does not indicate why something like that should be notable. The tone is generally promotional, and the cited sources cannot be relied upon to provide independent coverage (see Paid news in India). Sandstein 14:30, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Sandstein 14:30, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:56, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously deleted via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:42, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Waddles 🗩 🖉 00:46, 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 12:34, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Demenzia

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

I may be missing something due to language barrier, but I couldn't find evidence that they meet WP:NBAND or WP:GNG. They don't seem to have charted, and most sources I could find, in the article and with a Google search, were primary sources, festivals, myspace - nothing clearly showing the coverage or significance needed for N. Boleyn (talk) 15:07, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:39, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I found one reliable publication: [54], but it is just a brief new album announcement. Otherwise I can find no significant coverage, and the band hasn't gotten beyond fan-created directory sites like Metal Archives and Spirit of Metal. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:56, 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 Leb i sol. (non-admin closure) Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:19, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nikola Kokan Dimuševski

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

I couldn't establish that he meets WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG independently of his band. If found non-notable, possibly worth redirect to Leb i sol. I am aware language barrier has made it difficult, but I couldn't find sources to establish his notability. Boleyn (talk) 15:35, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:43, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Macedonia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:43, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:28, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Leb i sol, as has already been done for at least one of their albums. I also can find no coverage outside the band, nor reliable reviews of any of his solo works. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:59, 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. RL0919 (talk) 03:06, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ivomoku Bakusuba

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

Only source is a self-published 'e-book' hosted on Scribd. Fails WP:N / WP:V Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:24, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:24, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Even the e-book indicates he wasn't notable with "Very little is known about him". Waddles 🗩 🖉 00:36, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails BASIC and GNG. no sources indicate this subject is notable. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 01:21, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:41, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Seems like the only other sources outside of the e-book about this subject are from message boards. Not notable. Gargleafg (talk) 22:52, 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 delete. ✗plicit 12:54, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Estatic Fear

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:NBAND or WP:GNG. Even the article asserts no commercial success, but asserts there was 'a cult following'. The sources (in this article, the other language articles and Google) didn't indicate it meets notability. It has been in CAT:NN for 12 years; hopefully we can now get it resolved. Boleyn (talk) 21:04, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:09, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:09, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:23, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The references just consist of basic information that do not provide any proof of notability, as well as Facebook links. Waddles 🗩 🖉 00:33, 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.

[1] "Shyamal Bagchee – Asian Heritage in Canada". Ryerson University.

[2] Chilana, Rajwant Singh (2017). South Asian writers in Canada : a bio-bibliographical study. Surrey, BC, Canada. p. 288. ISBN 9780987959010.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)

[3] Matthews, Greg J. (4 December 2008). Literary Research and Irish Literature: Strategies and Sources. Scarecrow Press. p. 99. ISBN 978-0-8108-6367-5.

[4] ttps://www.anterogroup.com/project/indiana-enterprise-center/

[5] ttps://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/buttigieg-transportation-politics/2021/08/13/4ad67328-fb78-11eb-9c0e-97e29906a970_story.html

[6] ttps://www.hoopladigital.com/title/14357370

[7] "Beijing's Answer to Bond". Beijing Review. 2008-01-17. Archived from the original on 2019-11-21.

[8] Huang Panyue (21 August 2019). "New counter-terror force in Xinjiang - China Military". PLA Daily. Retrieved 8 October 2019.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[1]

[2]